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

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

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the several rights under the agreement entered into between 11 ITA 489/Kol /2005 ITA 1808/Kol /2006 ITA 1811/Kol /2006 Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd Oberoi Hotels (India) Ltd. [now renamed as Oberoi Hotels Pvt Ltd]and Asian Hotels Corpn. Ltd, Sri Lanka

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

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the appellant and thereby passing an exparte order. I.T.A. No. 345/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nikunj Dhanuka 2 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not properly serving the Notice fixing the date of hearing

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

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

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

BASTUHARA SAHAYATA SAMITI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

gained in any manner whatsoever by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation and was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). The assessee was not negligent in filing the appeal but for some unavoidable reasons and circumstances, no step was possible to be taken for filing

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

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

282 days in filing of the appeal. 3. On the other hand, the ld. D/R opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. We have duly considered the rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. 5. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum

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

1,28,17,282/- 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

1,28,17,282/- in respect of long term capital gain on sale of part of land at 52/5A in the assessment framed under section

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

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

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]

282(SC) to defend his arguments that on debatable issue revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not available. The ld AR further argued that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunil Lamba in ITA 465/2003 dated 20.03.2019after considering the above two decisions of the Honble Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction