THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIA FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),EXEMPT, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains of business” in section 80P (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought by a cooperative society must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to Page 18 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains of business” in section 80P (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought by a cooperative society must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to Page 18 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

15. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. PCIT and requested that the order of the Ld. PCIT may be confirmed. 16. We have examined the matter and also gone through the submissions made. Section 45(1) relating to capital gains is reproduced as under: 45. (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

15. The property was acquired in 1910, and thereafter received by the assessee on demerger and then development agreement was entered into with holding Company. The cost therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of original company in 1910 (vide section 0 (vide section 49(1)(e) read with se 47 (vib) and then by taking

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

15. The property was acquired in 1910, and thereafter received by the assessee on demerger and then development agreement was entered into with holding Company. The cost therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of original company in 1910 (vide section 0 (vide section 49(1)(e) read with se 47 (vib) and then by taking

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

gains under section 48 of the Act. Sub-clause (i) of that Section states that expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of capital asset has to be deducted from full value consideration received or accruing. Preamble of the Conveyance Deed executed by the assessee along with Shri Nita Basu reads as under :— 'THIS INDENTURE made this

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

capital gain tax can be levied. 12. For the completeness of the discussion, we may note that section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956 pertains to form of contents of balance-sheet and profit and loss account, sub-section (1) of Section 211 provided that every balance sheet of a company shall give true and fair view on the state

RAM NIRANJAN BANKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

2,81,04,250 Deduct: cost of construction paid to Developer for area set apart for Original Lessor (44,26,906) & indexed cost of land 60,22,089 not considered (15,95,183) Long term Capital gain on transfer of land proportionate to Developer’s allocation 4,65,63,334 5,42,02,854 3.3. As regards computation of capital

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

2, 3 and 4 relate to the Ld. CIT (A) erring in denying\nthe deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee did\nnot deposit the sale proceeds of his old property in Capital Gains\nAccount Scheme, 1988 and had kept the sale proceeds of his old\nproperty in his savings bank account and fixed deposits

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains\nmade by him for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets.\nWe find therefore that on this ground also, the assessee is liable to succeed. The\nappeals are, accordingly, allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set\naside.'\n12. In view of the interpretation given to the word \"utilized\" used in section

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2 and 4 are dismissed. 14. As regards Ground no. 3 the provisions of sub-section (15) of section 155 of the Act are as under: “Other amendments. 155. (15) Where in the assessment for any year, a capital gain

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

15. We observe that in the case of assessee namely M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd., incurred short term capital loss from purchase and sale of equity shares of Blue Circle Services Ltd. during FY 2013-14. In the said transaction of short term capital loss (in short ‘STCL’)/long term capital gain (in short ‘LTCG) there is no merger