SMT. ROMI LAHIRI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

Capital gains and withdrawing the benefits under section 54F of the Act. Besides this, penalty proceedings were also initiated and levied in the sum of Rs.63,368/- vide order dated 24.06.2011. Appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ended up in dismissal confirming the order passed by the AO. Hence, the assessee has preferred an appeal on the following

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

section 271(1)(c) for the alleged concealment, in regard to the income arising from Long Term Capital Gain originating

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain on sale of shares of M/s. Vishal Retail Ltd. is factually incorrect. It is relevant to reproduce herein below the Explanation 1 to section 271

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Sections 54, 54F, Secs. 54 and 54F of the IT Act, 1961, provide that capital gains arising on transfer of a long term capital asset shall not be charged to tax to the extent specified therein, where the amount of capital gain is invested in a residential house. In the case of purchase of a house, the benefit is available

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain should not be treated as undisclosed under the head undisclosed investments. 3.3 The above submissions did not find favour with the AO. The AO held that the assessee had deliberately tried to conceal his professional receipt by depositing it in the bank account not disclosed to the department. He was well aware of the volume of transactions being

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.07.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances

SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee was allotted 29000 shares of NCL Research & Investment Limited through preferential allotment at the rate of Rs. 275 per share. The purchase consideration was paid by account payee cheque and the transaction was reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee for the previous year ending

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee was allotted 29000 shares of NCL Research & Investment Limited through preferential allotment at the rate of Rs. 275 per share. The purchase consideration was paid by account payee cheque and the transaction was reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee for the previous year ending

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee was allotted 29000 shares of NCL Research & Investment Limited through preferential allotment at the rate of Rs. 275 per share. The purchase consideration was paid by account payee cheque and the transaction was reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee for the previous year ending

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means where

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means where

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, the provision of Section 50C would be applicable. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the action of the AO of not referring the matter to the DVO. Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (f) The Ld. CIT(A) held that the acceptable variation range of (+/-) 15% does not exist within

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, the provision of Section 50C would be applicable. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the action of the AO of not referring the matter to the DVO. Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (f) The Ld. CIT(A) held that the acceptable variation range of (+/-) 15% does not exist within

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gain on sale of shares of M/s. Vishal Retail Ltd is factually incorrect. It is relevant to reproduce herein below the Explanation 1 to section 271

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the Ld. AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and penalty show cause notice was issued to the appellant. Consequently, penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

M/S CORONATION REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

capital gain arising from the sale of shares of Jackson Investment Limited by treating the same as bogus. Penalty proceedings under section 271

ITO, WD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI NIRMALENDU SEN, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 554/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] C.O. No. 28/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………....…. Appellant (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069

gain on account of transfer of capital asset into partnership firm. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 5. The wording of Section 45(3) is specific. We respectfully follow the propositions of law laid down by the co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, Mumbai. Hence we uphold the order

ITO, WD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHEILA SEN, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 554/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] C.O. No. 28/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………....…. Appellant (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069

gain on account of transfer of capital asset into partnership firm. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 5. The wording of Section 45(3) is specific. We respectfully follow the propositions of law laid down by the co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, Mumbai. Hence we uphold the order