RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

2(14) as has been provided in (i) to (vi) to the said section. Further the gain arising from the transfer of long term capital asset is treated for long term capital gain chargeable to tax u/s 45 and section 47

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

2(19AA) r.w. Section 47(vi) of the Act. Since we have\nupheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings holding the scheme of demerger to be compliant with Section\n2(19AA) r.w. Section 47(vi) of the Act, we agree with the Ld. CIT(A) deleting this direction\nissued by the AO and dismiss these grounds as well.\n6.\nThis

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

gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The transfer is defined under section 2(47) of the Act as under: 2(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

47) of the Act, held that insertion of sub-Clause (v), which provides that any transaction involving allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of the TP Act, will also come within the ambit of transfer is relevant.” 6.3. Considering

TAMAL KUNDU,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 37, , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 1797/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 2(47)(vi) of the Act, has observed that the idea is to bring within the tax net a de facto transfer of any immovable property, where though title may not be transferred in law, there is, in substance, a transfer of title, in fact. However, in the case in hand, as observed above, there is no transfer

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , 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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gain since the rate of\ntax prevailing for this assessment year was 30% u/s 115BBE of the Act.\nThis rate was enhanced to 60% from AY 2017-18 only. While the issue of\ntaxation would at best be a secondary consideration in deciding the merit\nof the case, it does have a certain persuasive value considering that the\nimpugned amount

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 2(47)(vi) which defines the term ‘transfer’. By referring to these two definitions, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that it can be easily inferred that the transaction of even leasehold property may yield long term capital gain

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

vi) Voltas Ltd. v. ITO (74 taxmann.com 99) (ITAT Mum) (vii) Shri Farid Gulmohammed vs. ITO (ITA No. 5136/Mum/2014) (ITAT Mum) (viii) ITO vs Yasin Moosa Godil (20 taxmann.com 424) (ITAT Ahmedabad) (ix) ACIT vs. Nadir Nazarali Dhanani (ITA No. 100/Mum/2013) (ITAT Mum); (x) Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No. 7231/Mum/2010) (ITAT Mum); (xi) ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta

M/S. NKA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR OF M/S. NK ENTERPRISES (P) LTD,SINCE AMALGAMATED),KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-3(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1106/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Nka Commercialprivate Limited,.........Appellant (Successor Of M/S. Nk Enterprises (P) Ltd. Since Amalgamated) Unit 1304, Plot No. Ai-4, Ergo Building, Ep/Gp Block, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091 [Pan: Aaccn3159Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Amitava Sen, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 26, 2023 O R D E R

2(47)(v) of the Act as only construction was allowed to be done by the builders after obtaining necessary approvals from competent authorities and, therefore, the capital gain has wrongly been computed and 3 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/s.NKA Commercial Private Limited charged to tax. The ld. A.R. relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under