BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

62 results for “capital gains”+ Section 271(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai470Delhi371Jaipur158Chennai127Ahmedabad110Hyderabad98Bangalore84Kolkata62Indore55Pune53Raipur51Chandigarh43Surat28Lucknow28Nagpur25Guwahati24Rajkot21Visakhapatnam18Dehradun13Amritsar11Cuttack9Jodhpur9Agra8Ranchi6Cochin5Patna5Allahabad5Jabalpur2Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)48Addition to Income41Section 25037Section 14833Section 143(3)31Section 14724Penalty20Section 6819Section 14A19Deduction

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (PAN: ALEPS2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Amitabha Sanyal, Assessee Respondent

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

19
Section 10(38)18
Disallowance13

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 394/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 395/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 396/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 397/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 393/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

b) The CIT(A) has treated this contention of non-applicability of 50C on building as an additional ground and observed that since gain on sale of building is offered as 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

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

b) The CIT(A) has treated this contention of non-applicability of 50C on building as an additional ground and observed that since gain on sale of building is offered as 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

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

capital gains amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO erred in not allowing deduction of u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Page

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

capital gains amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO erred in not allowing deduction of u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Page

PRADYUMNA DALMIA BENEFICIARY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1613/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

b) having a total income (including the income under the provisions of section 111A and section 112A of the Income-tax Act) exceeding one crore rupees, but not exceeding two crore rupees at the rate of fifteen per cent. of such income-tax; (c) having a total income (excluding the income under the provisions of section 111A and section 112A

JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) provides that, if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers 3 I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2024 Jitendra Kumar Jain (HUF) an explanation which is found by the ld. Assessing Officer to be false, but now in the present case, the assessee has an explanation and it has buttressed this explanation with the following documentary evidence

MANOJ JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/KOL/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

capital gain of Rs. 1,09,35,000/- was added to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee challenged the reopening of assessment, however the same was held to be validly done by the AO. 5. The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted before

SHUBH KARAN BAID. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) provides that, if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the ld. Assessing Officer to be false, but now in the present case, the assessee has an explanation and it has buttressed this explanation with the following documentary evidence, i.e. (a) Trading of shares was done through broker

VIRENDRA KUMAR SURANA HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 364/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Virendra Kumar Surana, Huf Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 4A, Pollock Street, Swaika 36(1), Kolkata. Vs. Centre, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 308, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabhv3803K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Virendra Kumar Surana, HUF Income-tax Officer, Ward- 4A, Pollock Street, Swaika 36(1), Kolkata. Vs. Centre, 3rd Floor, R. No. 308, Kolkata-700001. (PAN: AABHV3803K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate Respondent by : Shri

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the provision for royalty of Rs. 1,02,87,073/- during the relevant assessment year 2009-10. 5) For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the provision for royalty of Rs. 1,02,87,073/- under section 40(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6) For that

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the provision for royalty of Rs. 1,02,87,073/- during the relevant assessment year 2009-10. 5) For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the provision for royalty of Rs. 1,02,87,073/- under section 40(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6) For that

RAM AWATAR DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. WARD 22(4) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 91/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 29B, Rabindra Sarani Floor, Room No.10E, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adepd7419F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, Self, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.14,94,407/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 29B, Rabindra Sarani Floor, Room No.10E, Kolkata-700073. [PAN: ADEPD7419F] vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, Self, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl