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

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

gains tax as per provisionsof Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act and erroneously proceeded on such unwarranted assumption wrongfully and illegallyattributed to the assessee's Counsel?" Let the Paper Book be filed within 8 weeks from date. Let the appeal be listed for hearing 12 weeks hence. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: 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. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

capital gain / loss/trading loss by price rigging and manipulation on the stock exchange platform. The ld. Assessing Officer also referred to the enquiries conducted by the SEBI and the Investigation Wing of the Deptt in which it was found that some brokers have manipulated and rigged the share prices in order to give undue benefit to the beneficiaries

NALANDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: 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. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

Section 56(2)(x)of the Act are not applicable which provides that where the market value of the property is more than the sale consideration received by the assessee then the difference between the two shall be considered. The case of the assessee finds support from the decisions of the coordinate benches in the Sandeep Patil ITA No.924/Bang/2020, John

NIKUNJ DHANUKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

282 of the Act. 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reopening proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the proceeding initiated u/s 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from

THE BARANAGAR JUTE FACTORY PLC,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1149/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Baranagar Jute Factory Plc Principal Cit-1, Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite-213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aabct0134C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri G.H. Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pr. Cit”], Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 28/03/2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit U/S 263 Of The Act Through The Various Grounds Of Appeal. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dt. 31/03/2016. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Upon Perusal Of The Assessment Records, Observed That The Assessing Officer Has Not Examined The Four Issues Which Were Discussed By The Ld. Pr. Cit In The Revisionary Order Which Are Extracted Below:- “2. On A Perusal Of The Assessment Record Of The Assessee, It Was Observed As Under:

Section 145A(b) of the Act, is not correct. 4.2. The ld. A/R submitted that nature of interest on enhanced compensation of land partook the character of long term capital gain and not income from other sources as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in 128 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. RAHUL SARAF, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

282/- in respect of long term capital gain on sale of part of land at 52/5A in the assessment framed under section

RAHUL SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

282/- in respect of long term capital gain on sale of part of land at 52/5A in the assessment framed under section

MISRILALL MINES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2 , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38) of the Act as the long term capital loss (STT paid ) is a negative income. Accordingly the Ld. PCIT issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act and after taking into account the reply to the show cause notice passed an order u/s 263 of the Act dated 29.03.2022 setting aside the assessment order and directing

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

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

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-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

282 (Del). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in making an upward adjustment of Rs. Page 3 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited. 3,12,83,015/- computed as per Rule

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-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

282 (Del). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in making an upward adjustment of Rs. Page 3 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited. 3,12,83,015/- computed as per Rule

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

282 of the Income Tax Act read with Rules 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Finally, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 251 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay

TATUN GUHA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Tatun Guha………..………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Namita Nilay, College Para, Siliguri, W.B - 734001.. [Pan: Ahbpg6041R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

capital gain was issued on 24.03.2022. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submission of the assessee being tenable and made an addition of Rs.2,63,44,488/- in the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

282 (SC). However, the said case dealt with the interpretation, and the deduction, which would be applicable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the LT. Act. For, in the present case the interpretation that is required is of Section 80P (2)(d) of the LT. Act and not Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. Therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

282 (SC). However, the said case dealt with the interpretation, and the deduction, which would be applicable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the LT. Act. For, in the present case the interpretation that is required is of Section 80P (2)(d) of the LT. Act and not Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. Therefore

TALUK GOPALPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED. ,MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD NO-27(3), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, the appellant fails with respect to ground no

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

gains achieved from interest earnings on such investments, is to be deducted in computing the total income. ……………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………. Page 6 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 1152/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Taluk Gopalpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited. 9. We find that revenue's case is covered by South Eastern Railways Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (supra

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

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)

282 ITR 431(ALL.) Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is applicable even when concealment of income is admitted by filing a revised return after detection of concealment. M. S. MOHAMMED MARZOOK (LATE) AND ANOTHER (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, [2006] 283 ITR 254 (MAD) Penalty- concealment of income-revised return filed after search proceedings - Finding

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

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

capital gains) amounting to Rs. 68.64 lakhs, which upon enquiry by AO was found as bogus and fictitious and notice u/s 148 dated 29/07/2022 was issued (as per procedure ) , and reassessment proceedings were completed after considering all submissions of the assessee , by disallowing the claim of LTCG treating the same to be accommodation entries against commission paid to the entry