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

71). The principle laid down by Rowlatt, J., has also been time and again approved and applied by the Supreme Court in different cases including the one Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Daye, Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs AIR 1970 SC 755 at p. 759. 3.3 Further, the conditions or restrictions contemplated by one statute having a different object

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

71). The principle laid down by Rowlatt, J., has also been time and again approved and applied by the Supreme Court in different cases including the one Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Daye, Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs AIR 1970 SC 755 at p. 759. 3.3 Further, the conditions or restrictions contemplated by one statute having a different object

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

2) due to the flats remaining unsold. However, the assessee derived a tangible benefit in form of development of the land into constructed flats without incurring any expenditure on its part. Thus, the assessee derived a benefit amounting to cost of construction borne by the developer in respect of the flats retained by the assessee. The benefit was in form

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

2) due to the flats remaining unsold. However, the assessee derived a tangible benefit in form of development of the land into constructed flats without incurring any expenditure on its part. Thus, the assessee derived a benefit amounting to cost of construction borne by the developer in respect of the flats retained by the assessee. The benefit was in form

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

2) due to the flats remaining unsold. However, the assessee derived a tangible benefit in form of development of the land into constructed flats without incurring any expenditure on its part. Thus, the assessee derived a benefit amounting to cost of construction borne by the developer in respect of the flats retained by the assessee. The benefit was in form

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

2) due to the flats remaining unsold. However, the assessee derived a tangible benefit in form of development of the land into constructed flats without incurring any expenditure on its part. Thus, the assessee derived a benefit amounting to cost of construction borne by the developer in respect of the flats retained by the assessee. The benefit was in form

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

2) due to the flats remaining unsold. However, the assessee derived a tangible benefit in form of development of the land into constructed flats without incurring any expenditure on its part. Thus, the assessee derived a benefit amounting to cost of construction borne by the developer in respect of the flats retained by the assessee. The benefit was in form

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

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]

71 and 74. We observe from the perusal of section 2(14) of the Act that shares/securities are treated as capital asset and no exception has been provided in section 2(14) as has been provided in (i) to (vi) to the said section. Further the gain

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

INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

71, so much of the loss as has not been so set off is to be carried forward to the following assessment year and is allowable for being set off "against the profits, if any, of that business or profession carried on by him and assessable for that assessment year". Hence, for claiming set-off under this Section, the loss

ITO, WARD - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LYONS & ROSES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

71,90,242/- as short term capital gains after setting off carried forward losses of Rs. 10,06,203/-. Under the head ‘business income’, the Learned AO observed that the assessee had disclosed Rs. 3,09,988/- as profit from trading in shares. The assessee was carrying on both trading and investment activity in purchase and sale of shares / units

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

71 of assessment order), actually existed, on which I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/201 I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar according to AO, these two legal propositions i.e. Section 28(iia) and Section 45 could be ccording to AO, these two legal propositions i.e. Section 28(iia) and Section 45 could be ccording

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

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

71,982/- incurred by the appellant in connection with the transfer of\nhis capital asset, if not as improvement cost of the capital asset, in view of\nCBDT circular No. 14(XL) 35 of 1955, dated 11.4.1955.\n8. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the\nLd. CIT (A) ought not to have confirmed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LOKENATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” ' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.17. We also find that there