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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

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

section 55(2)(a)of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1st April. 2003, is accepted and the assessee is liable to capital gains lax after taking the cost of capital asset at rupees nil. The learned counsel for the assessee also fairly conceded that the compensation amount of Rs.7,10,35,264

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

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

section 55(2)(a)of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1st April. 2003, is accepted and the assessee is liable to capital gains lax after taking the cost of capital asset at rupees nil. The learned counsel for the assessee also fairly conceded that the compensation amount of Rs.7,10,35,264

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

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

section 55(2)(a)of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1st April. 2003, is accepted and the assessee is liable to capital gains lax after taking the cost of capital asset at rupees nil. The learned counsel for the assessee also fairly conceded that the compensation amount of Rs.7,10,35,264

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

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

264/- . This was disallowed by the ld. AO and the said disallowance was confirmed by ld. CIT(A) as it was admittedly hit by the provisions of Section 43B(f) of the Act. In fact, the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 88,15,635/- as the assessee was seen to have paid Rs. 30,50,629/- before the due date

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

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

gain u/s 111A sum of Rs.37,29,653/- and attracted tax @15% a sum of Rs.5,59,448/-and long term capital a sum of Rs. 5,71,972/-and attracted tax @ 20% a sum of Rs. 1,14,395/-u/s 112. The assessee claimed the entire salary Income was exempted as per as per DTAA and claimed relief

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

gain u/s 111A sum of Rs.37,29,653/- and attracted tax @15% a sum of Rs.5,59,448/-and long term capital a sum of Rs. 5,71,972/-and attracted tax @ 20% a sum of Rs. 1,14,395/-u/s 112. The assessee claimed the entire salary Income was exempted as per as per DTAA and claimed relief

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains earned outside India and set off of brought forward losses for A.Y. 2016-17. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate this issue in the appeal. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have gone through the submissions made and also considered the facts of the case

VIVEK TIWARI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, SURI, SURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains earned outside I.T.A. No.: 163/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vivek Tiwari. India and set off of brought forward losses for A.Y. 2016-17. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate this issue in the appeal. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have gone through the submissions

SWAPAN BHTTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 61,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains earned outside India and set off of brought forward losses for A.Y. 2016-17. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate this issue in the appeal. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. No.: 242/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Swapan Bhttacharya. 6. We have gone through the submissions

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

264 without appreciating the fact that where deduction under section 80-IA had been granted to the appellant in the first year of the claim, it is not open for the Ld. AO to challenge the same in subsequent years. 6. Erroneous Levy of Interest under section 234A of the Act 6.1 The Ld. AO has erred in levying erroneous

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

264 ITR 254 (Gau). Even otherwise, the requirement of proving source of source in respect of unsecured loan transactions has been brought in the ambit of Section 68 w.e.f Assessment Year 2023-2024 and such amendment made in section 68 cannot be read to be retrospective in force. 6.2.8. The AO has further relied upon a list of “Identified Shell

DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN COAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

gains are computed under section 10 of 1922 Act. Again where the cash system is adopted, there is no question of bad debts or outstandings at all, in the case of mercantile system against the book profits some of the bad debts may have to be set off when they are found to be irrecoverable. Besides the cash system

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

gains are computed under section 10 of 1922 Act. Again where the cash system is adopted, there is no question of bad debts or outstandings at all, in the case of mercantile system against the book profits some of the bad debts may have to be set off when they are found to be irrecoverable. Besides the cash system

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

gains are computed under section 10 of 1922 Act. Again where the cash system is adopted, there is no question of bad debts or outstandings at all, in the case of mercantile system against the book profits some of the bad debts may have to be set off when they are found to be irrecoverable. Besides the cash system

ANINDYA SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALRU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gains of Rs. 4,57,352/-. Since, the salary income was from Singapore, taxes were paid in Singapore and relief under Section 90 of the Act was claimed by the assessee, who is an Indian resident, since India has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (for short ‘DTAA’) with Singapore from where he had earned income. The claim