SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

section 54F was to be allowed as per law. 20. The assessee had shown capital gains being the instalment of sale proceeds received in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 at Rs. 38,00,000/- and Rs. 24,00,000/- respectively, which was not correct. It has been judicially held that income is to be assessed in the correct

RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

gain on sale of shares/securities is uniformly laid down in Section 48 of the Act. The Ld. A.R argued that where the resultant figure is long term capital loss, the manner for claiming its set off / carry forward has been set out in Section 70, 71(3

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

3,61,35,000/- for land + ₹49,65,000/- for structure (building) and he assessee determined the Long Term Capital Loss at ₹12,35,377/- as under:- “Long Term Capital Gain/ (Loss) 1. Sale consideration ₹4,11,00,000/- Fair Market Value ₹9,03,42,619/ (u/s 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act)) Less: Indexed Cost

RAM NIRANJAN BANKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

gain scheme.Therefore the eligibility of deduction u/s 54(2) is not fulfilled. Thus this ground of appeal no. 3 is dismissed.” 5.3. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on records. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 54, amount of capital

RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

section was passed on 27.02.2023, setting aside the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 08.03.2021 on the following grounds: (a) Treatment of gain from transfer of 34 unquoted preference shares of ICICI Bank Ltd as long-term capital

SWETA SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Not to be charged on investment in certain bonds (Limitation period for investment) - Whether where assessee company invested long term capital 4 I.T.A. No. 207/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sweta Sonthalia gain in REC bonds in two different financial years but within six months from date of transfer of capital

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

3 to Rs. 55 in a short span of time. Mere payment by cheque and receipt by cheque does not. Render a transaction genuine. Capital gain tax was created to operate in a real world and not that of make belief. Facts of the case only lead to the inference that these transactions are not genuine and make believe only

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

3 to Rs. 55 in a short span of time. Mere payment by cheque and receipt by cheque does not. Render a transaction genuine. Capital gain tax was created to operate in a real world and not that of make belief. Facts of the case only lead to the inference that these transactions are not genuine and make believe only

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

3 to Rs. 55 in a short span of time. Mere payment by cheque and receipt by cheque does not. Render a transaction genuine. Capital gain tax was created to operate in a real world and not that of make belief. Facts of the case only lead to the inference that these transactions are not genuine and make believe only

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

3 to Rs. 55 in a short span of time. Mere payment by cheque and receipt by cheque does not. Render a transaction genuine. Capital gain tax was created to operate in a real world and not that of make belief. Facts of the case only lead to the inference that these transactions are not genuine and make believe only

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) years and/or make it habitable. The\nessence of said provision is to ensure that assessee who received capital gains would\ninvest same by constructing a residential house and once it is established that\nconsideration so received on transfer of his Long Term capital asset has invested in\nconstructing a residential house, it would satisfy the ingredients of Section

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date for filing returns under Section 139(1) was not fatal to the claim. The Tribunal also found that the assessee owned only one residential property and allowed the deduction.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "54F", "139(1)", "139(4)", "250", "143(2)", "142(1)", "143(3

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains from transfer of any long-term capital not\nbeing a residential house could claim benefit under the said Section provided, any one of\nthe following three conditions were satisfied; (i) the assessee had within a period of one\nyear before the sale, purchased a residential house; (ii) within two years after the date of\ntransfer of the original capital

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

section 143(3) of the Act dated 20.01.2016 and 07.12.2016 framed by ld. ITO, Ward-36(3), Kolkata. The grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 read as under:- (1) Ld Income Tax Officer has erred in law as well in fact in treating long term capital gain

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

section 143(3) of the Act dated 20.01.2016 and 07.12.2016 framed by ld. ITO, Ward-36(3), Kolkata. The grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 read as under:- (1) Ld Income Tax Officer has erred in law as well in fact in treating long term capital gain

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Capital Gains 9,91,00,694/- 3 Bani Broto Banerjee 5. Dissatisfied with this working, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has accepted the contention of the assessee with regard to admissibility of expenditure incurred for furniture and fixtures. The finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this aspect

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain invested in the construction of new property within the time as allowed under that section and failure to deposit the unutilized amount on the due date of filing the income tax return in specified bank account would not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption 12 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. u/s 54/54F. Therefore

BEGRAJ AGARWAL & ORS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 34(1), Kolkata Begraj Agarwal & Ors. Huf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Diamond Heritage, Unit No.609, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107, Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabhb8295F Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

section 148 of the Act may be dropped. However, the ld. AO after discussing the reply of the assessee noted that the assessee has furnished purchase bill dated 28.03.2013, along with 3,000/- shares of Sulbha Engineering and Ors. However he failed to furnish the details of Long Term Capital Gain