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

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

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

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

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

250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural\njustice.\n2. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the\nLd. CIT (A) was not justified in denying the deduction u/s 54F of the Act on\nthe ground that the appellant did not deposit the sale proceeds of his old\nproperty

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

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

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

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

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

ARCHANA BAID,SILCHAR, ASSAM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain of Rs. 6,34,000/- only. The difference of Rs. 26,75,340/- was added to the income shown in the return and the total income was assessed at Rs.33,52,340/-. The assessee could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A) since due compliance was not made. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer

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

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

AVR STORAGE TANK TERMINALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

capital gains chargeable to income-tax as per the revised computation furnished by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the NFAC erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation as per the revised computation of depreciation furnished by the appellant during the course

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