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

250 dated 15.3.2024 to comply on or before 22.3.2024 of why the gain resulting from the transfer of the depreciable capital asset should not be considered as a short-term capital gain in accordance with section

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 45(3) of the Act does not seek to substitute by any other figure the value agreed between the partners at which the asset is transferred by a partner to the firm. Hence the finding of the ld AO that the land was grossly undervalued till it was part of inventory in the books of the said firm

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 45(3) of the Act does not seek to substitute by any other figure the value agreed between the partners at which the asset is transferred by a partner to the firm. Hence the 11 12 M/s Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 finding of the ld AO that the land was grossly undervalued till

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

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 gains on transfer

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 45(3) of the Act does not seek to substitute by any other figure the value agreed between the partners at which the asset is transferred by a partner to the firm. Hence the finding of the ld AO that the land was grossly undervalued till it was part of inventory in the books of the said firm

UTSAV JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WD29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10 Utsav Jain V/S. Ito, Ward-29(4), 90C Alipur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, 2, Kolkata-700 027 Gariahat Road, [Pan No.Agrpj 4300 R] Kolkataa-700 068 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

250/-. The above facts clearly prove that the property was held for less than three years and there was a short term capital gain of Rs.52,47,000/-.” ITA No.1514/Kol/2013 A.Y.2009-10 Utsav Jain v. ITO Wd-29(4) Kol. Page 5 Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 4. Before

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-23(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDIP ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

section 55A empowers Assessing Officer to make reference to DVO where in his opinion fair market value estimated by assessee is not proper – Held, yes – assessee had sold it property for Rs.97,50000 which was purchased by assessee on 31-7-1979 at a purchase price of Rs.2,80,882 – However, while calculating long-term capital gain, assessee adopted market

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata [in short “ld. CIT(A)”]. 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and the facts are almost identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, these are heard together and being disposed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata [in short “ld. CIT(A)”]. 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and the facts are almost identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, these are heard together and being disposed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata [in short “ld. CIT(A)”]. 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and the facts are almost identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, these are heard together and being disposed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata [in short “ld. CIT(A)”]. 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are mostly common and the facts are almost identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, these are heard together and being disposed

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

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

Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date for filing returns under Section 139(1) was not fatal to the claim. The Tribunal also found that the assessee owned only one residential property and allowed the deduction.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "54F", "139(1)", "139(4)", "250

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to\nas the 'Act')for the AY 2021-22.\n2. The only effective issue raised in the grounds of appeal is\nagainst the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly upholding the order of\nAO wherein the AO has denied the benefit of exemption claimed u/s\n54F of the Act of Rs.26

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2011-12. 2. Facts as brought out by the ld. CIT(A) are extracted for ready reference: “1.0. The appellant is a Public Limited Company and is a member of Thapar Group engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Textiles, Yarns, Nylon and Polyester Filament

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2011-12. 2. Facts as brought out by the ld. CIT(A) are extracted for ready reference: “1.0. The appellant is a Public Limited Company and is a member of Thapar Group engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Textiles, Yarns, Nylon and Polyester Filament

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]

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15. 2. There is a delay of two days in filing of this appeal by the Revenue. The same is hereby condoned. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee challenged the maintainability of the Departmental appeal. The assessee filed detailed written submissions

DCIT, CC - I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNITA KHEMKA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The only issue to be decided in these appeals are that whether the assessee is eligible to claim long term capital gains on sale of shares during Asst Years 2001-02 to 2004-05 at a concessional rate of 10% and exemption

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ’the Act’), date of order 31/08/2006 for Assessment year 2003-04 and dated 29/12/2004 for A.Y. 2001-02. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the Ld.DCIT, Circle-8, Kolkata for A.Y. 2001-02 date of order 29/03/2004 and ld. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ( OSD), Kolkata, In charge