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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

250(6) of the Act , has to be filed within sixty days from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated. Further, as per the provisions of Sec.253(5) of the Act , the Tribunal may admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub- section(4

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, 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

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

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA. , 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

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

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

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. As both the appeals involve a common issue, the same were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. As both the appeals involve a common issue, the same were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), dt. 25/09/2018, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee has filed a cross-objection bearing C.O. No. 09/Kol/2020, against the appeal filed by the revenue. I.T.A. No. 2644/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 C.O. No. 09/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Britannia Industries 2 2. The Registry has pointed out that

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

capital gain have been found to be genuine, and as per rules and regulation of SEBI, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the impugned additions in case of assessee(s) in appeal before us are uncalled for. 11.1. In the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Renu Aggarwal (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 28.06.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 06.04.2021. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong

NALANDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The issues raised in Ground Nos. 2 to 4 is against the confirmation of addition as made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference between the value taken by the assessee and the fair market value