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 50 of the Act. The appellant responded vaguely by saying 'medical ground' without elaborating on who fell ill and how the alleged illness hindered

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)

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book of the assessee comprising of pages 1 to 124 of the paper book. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and 10 11 M/s Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 hence the same are not reiterated for the sake

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)

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book of the assessee comprising of pages 1 to 124 of the paper book. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that the assessee along with

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)

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book of the assessee comprising of pages 1 to 124 of the paper book. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that the assessee along with

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

250 and completed assessment accordingly Whether since assessee inflated market value of property as on 1- 4-1981 with motive of avoiding capital gain, action of Assessing Officer in ITA No.2864/Kol/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO Ward-23(3), Kol. vs. Sudip Roy Page 5 making reference to DVO while not accepting valuation shown by assessee on basis of registered valuer’s report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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