RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee

BISHISTA BAGCHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.540/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bishista Bagchi..........................………………............................…….…………….....Appellant 3C, Santosh Garden, 8, Ekdalia Road, Ballygunj, Kolkata. [Pan:Ayapb6940J] Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru………….…..…...............……........……...…..……………Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar,Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Gautam Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :January 31, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.10.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gains. However, the above case law is distinguishable from the instant case on the basis of facts and is also not binding on the AO of the appellant. The main reason for relief in GirishHaribhaiTrivedi(supra)was that the policy taken by the appellant was a unit linked insurance policy wherein a small portion of the investment goes

ADITYA VIKRAM SUREKA, HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1650/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Aditya Vikram Sureka Huf -Vs- Ito, Ward-34(2) , Kolkata [Pan: Aamha 4069 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 269 of the I.T. Act says the definition of High Court.\nIn this chapter High Court means:\n(i) in relation to any State, the High Court for that State;\n(ii) in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi;\na)*\n(iii)****\n(iv) in relation to the Union Territory of the Andaman

D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAUD TEA & SEED CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1325/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 D.C.I.T., Cir-4, Kolkata .............................………………………….........................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 M/S. Maud Tea & Seed Co. Ltd……………………………………………….........Respondent 2, N.C. Dutta Sarani, Sagar Estate, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aaccm0710C] Appearances By: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 13, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata Dated 28.02.2013. 2. The Common Issue Involved In Ground No 1 To 3 Of This Appeal Relates To The Determination Of The Long Term Capital Gain From The Land Sold By The Assessee Company. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Growing, Manufacturing & Selling Of Tea. During The Year Under Consideration It Sold 132 Bighas Of Sewpur Tea Estate Land For A Consideration Of Rs. 9,07,20,000/- To Tinsukia Development Authority (As) Vide An Agreement Dated 18.08.2008. The Fair Market

section 55(2)(b)(ii) has to be taken at Rs. 78,61,672/- as claimed by the assessee since the same was worked out by the assessee by reverse calculation after considering the value of present day land and this method or basis followed by the assessee is not correct. In our opinion, the fair market value

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 2121/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel -Vs- Dcit, Circle-43, Kolkata [Pan: Affpg 1693 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(1A) of the Act and therefore not chargeable to Central income-tax.” Applying the proposition of law I hold that the profit on sale of agricultural land cannot be treated as income and brought to tax under the Income Tax Act. 9. Even if the assessee has filed a return disclosing the profit as short term capital gain

SMT. MADHU KILLA, KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee

THE ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 29.12.2011 and 12.02.2015 respectively for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2012-13 respectively. All appeals are taken up together and disposed off by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1860/Kol/2016 – Asst Year 2009-10 – Revenue Appeal 2. The only issue

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 29.12.2011 and 12.02.2015 respectively for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2012-13 respectively. All appeals are taken up together and disposed off by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1860/Kol/2016 – Asst Year 2009-10 – Revenue Appeal 2. The only issue

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 29.12.2011 and 12.02.2015 respectively for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2012-13 respectively. All appeals are taken up together and disposed off by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1860/Kol/2016 – Asst Year 2009-10 – Revenue Appeal 2. The only issue

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains of Rs.1,52,47,379/- and claimed the same as exempted from tax. The assessee also claimed to have added back interest on loan of Rs.14,21,34,269/- and de mat charges of ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 Rs.6,85,115/- relatable to exempted income and added

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains of Rs.1,52,47,379/- and claimed the same as exempted from tax. The assessee also claimed to have added back interest on loan of Rs.14,21,34,269/- and de mat charges of ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 Rs.6,85,115/- relatable to exempted income and added

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains of Rs.1,52,47,379/- and claimed the same as exempted from tax. The assessee also claimed to have added back interest on loan of Rs.14,21,34,269/- and de mat charges of ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 Rs.6,85,115/- relatable to exempted income and added

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains of Rs.1,52,47,379/- and claimed the same as exempted from tax. The assessee also claimed to have added back interest on loan of Rs.14,21,34,269/- and de mat charges of ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 Rs.6,85,115/- relatable to exempted income and added