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

Capital Gain (LTCG") on sale of both land and build- ing without appreciating that the building formed part of block of assets and hence as per provisions of Section 43(6) only 'moneys payable" in respect of such building was required to be reduced from the relevant block of assets. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BIMALA DEVI PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

capital gains or any other income arising out of the transactions entered into by the concerned parties as per share purchase agreement dated 28-01-06. Thus, the contention of the assessee that there is no dispute that Controlling Interest was transferred together with shares is not accepted by us. We will give our findings on this basis." We find

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. GAYATRI NEOTIA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SURESH KUMAR NEOTIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

capital gains or any other income arising out of the transactions entered into by the concerned parties as per share purchase agreement dated 28-01-06. Thus, the contention of the assessee that there is no dispute that Controlling Interest was transferred together with shares is not accepted by us. We will give our findings on this basis." We find

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOVIND COMMERCIAL CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

capital gains or any other income arising out of the transactions entered into by the concerned parties as per share purchase agreement dated 28-01-06. Thus, the contention of the assessee that there is no dispute that Controlling Interest was transferred together with shares is not accepted by us. We will give our findings on this basis." We find

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.K.B.K. FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. NOW KNOW AS AMBUJA NEOTIA HOLDINGS P LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

capital gains or any other income arising out of the transactions entered into by the concerned parties as per share purchase agreement dated 28-01-06. Thus, the contention of the assessee that there is no dispute that Controlling Interest was transferred together with shares is not accepted by us. We will give our findings on this basis." We find

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LIKHAMI COMMERCIAL COMPANY LTD. AMALGAMATED INTO CHOICEST ENTERPRISES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

capital gains or any other income arising out of the transactions entered into by the concerned parties as per share purchase agreement dated 28-01-06. Thus, the contention of the assessee that there is no dispute that Controlling Interest was transferred together with shares is not accepted by us. We will give our findings on this basis." We find

JAGANNATH DATTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-24(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain addition in the hands of the assessee which are already narrated above. He categorically pointed out that identical issue was raised in the hands of wife of the assessee i.e. Smt. Angana Datta since it was a transaction of an immovable property wherein there were joint owners including assessee. He submitted that in the case of wife

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: 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. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

254 (SC). Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. 2 challenges the addition of Rs.1,71,18,489/- made by the Assessing Officer invoking Section 43CA of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer while examining the records of the assessee also possessed the individual transactions statement related to the assessee pertaining to 15 flats

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 461/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Britannia Industries Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata 5/1A, Hungerford Street Vs Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata - 700017 [Pan: Aabcb2066P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kush Kanodia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned 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. 24/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Suo Moto Computed & Disallowed Sum Of Rs.14,10,610/- Which Inter Alia Included Sum Of Rs.14,19,009/- Computed In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Being 1% Of The Value Of Tax Free Investments & Therefore The Ao Had Factually Erred In Holding That The Aforesaid Voluntary Disallowance Represented Disallowance Offered By Way Of Direct Expenditure U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D(2)(I) & Thereby Wrongly Computed Further Disallowance Of Rs.13,32,000/- In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

capital gain by taking the value of the cost of investments sold in accordance with FIFO Method, as mandated by Section 45(2A) of the Act. 7. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified on facts and in law in denying the deduction of Rs.11.07

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gains which in\nthis case were shares. There was no information which shares had\nbeen transferred and with whom the transaction had taken place. The\nA.O. did not verify the correctness of information received by him but\nmerely accepted the truth of the vague information in a mechanical\nmanner. The A.O. had not even recorded his satisfaction about

SHYAM METALICS AMD ENERGY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

gains or losses. The ld. AO also referred to a report published by the Directorate of Income tax Mumbai, which listed UIL as a penny stock scrip to arrange bogus LTCG/ loss. The ld. AO therefore held that the loss of Rs.1,89,53,757/- incurred on shares of UIL was not genuine and therefore added the same

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

gains of business, the break-up of Rs.26.69 cr and the reasons as to why the assessee is eligible to claim the same was submitted as follows: Particulars Rs. in Remarks crores Extraordinary Item 26.69 Claim not received from the debited in profit and Insurance Company debited in profit Loss A/c (a) and Loss A/c, being loss incurred

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

section 115JB of the Act.\n7.9 We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made\nand the documents filed. The issue arose in the case of Maxopp\nInvestment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [2018]\n91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR

M/S SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 1318/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 M/S. Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited,....Appellant 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road (South), Topsia, Kolkata-700046 [Pan: Aaacs1425L] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-11(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- I.T.A. No. 1538/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-11(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- M/S. Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited,.Respondent 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road (South), Topsia, Kolkata-700046 [Pan: Aaacs1425L]

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. As observed above, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited – vs.- Additional Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2015) 54 taxmann.com 254 (Delhi) (supra). This issue is accordingly decided against the assessee. 11. In view

ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 1318/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 M/S. Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited,....Appellant 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road (South), Topsia, Kolkata-700046 [Pan: Aaacs1425L] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-11(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- I.T.A. No. 1538/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-11(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- M/S. Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited,.Respondent 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road (South), Topsia, Kolkata-700046 [Pan: Aaacs1425L]

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. As observed above, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited – vs.- Additional Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2015) 54 taxmann.com 254 (Delhi) (supra). This issue is accordingly decided against the assessee. 11. In view

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

254 of the Act. In other words, this decision is of no avail to the department. 12. Learned counsel for the department had also relied on the decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara us. Elecon Engineering Company Limited. This decision is on the question of application of Section 43A of the 1961 Act. Accordingly

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

gain on marked-to-\nmarket forex loss in AY 2009-10. It is also stated that Marked-to-market\nforeign exchange loss is an ‘expenditure' allowable as deduction under\nsection 37 of the Act and Marked-to-market loss is not notional or\ncontingent in nature, but 'crystallized loss'allowable as deduction\nunder section 37 of the Act in view

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

gain on marked-to- market forex loss in AY 2009-10. It is also stated that Marked-to-market foreign exchange loss is an ‘expenditure' allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Act and Marked-to-market loss is not notional or contingent in nature, but 'crystallized loss'allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Act in view