THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 143(3):- ] “Set off of LTCG of Rs.86,39.024/- from Sale of Bonds and LTCG of Rs.11,302,064/- from sale of Right to Property against LTCL of Rs.111,33,28,388!- from sale of Government Securities not permissible to the assessee. During the year the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gains

UTSAV JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WD29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10 Utsav Jain V/S. Ito, Ward-29(4), 90C Alipur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, 2, Kolkata-700 027 Gariahat Road, [Pan No.Agrpj 4300 R] Kolkataa-700 068 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

302 on 3rd floor in building 'E' in the multi-storeyed residential complex named as "Pearl Gateway Towers" in Sector 44, Noida, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar, (U.P.) and instead treating the same as Short Term Capital Gains for Rs. 5247000/- and levying tax on it. 3) For that without prejudice to any other ground taken herein, the appellant is entitled

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 54F. If the\nassessee is able to establish that he had invested the entire net consideration within the\nstipulated period

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 54/54F has been followed. Reference has been made to the\njudgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari, [2008] 302 ITR 286 in which\nit has been held as under:-\n\"3. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessees have invested the entire net\nconsideration of sale of capital asset in the land itself

M/S NHAI,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T (TDS),SILIGURI, SIKKIM

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

section 50C of the Act. But for the purpose of deduction u/s. 54EC, the sale value would be taken at ₹18.99 lacs which is the actual sale consideration. It is also important to note that the Ld. AR at the time of hearing has also relied on the order of Nila V Shah (supra) and Ld. CIT(A) has also

SHRI VIJAY MAHIPAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54F is justified in the year the stipulated time period for purchase of new house or construction of new house expires. Considering the above facts I hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption U/S 54F to the extent of investment of Rs. 3,50,000/- made for purchase of land for the purpose of construction of residential house

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gains”. The Assessing Officer found that the purpose of selling share at a price less than market value/ book value was to escape from the tax liability therefore, it was disallowed by AO. However, from the above facts, we understand that genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of share with assessee and buyer-company has not been

CAROLINA FOOD AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

302 (SC). The ld. Assessing Officer on examination of this note issued a questionnaire to the assessee calling upon to clarify and offer explanation in respect of three issues, namely details of goodwill shown as an intangible assets and depreciation claimed from its inception post 2 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Carolina Food And Industries Pvt. Limited amalgamation i.e.01.01.2013, the basis

ITO, WARD - 2(3), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gain. He submitted that even the flats claimed to be purchased by the assessee were two different flats having different access and since the same were incapable of joining together, it was not a case of purchase of a new residential house by the assessee as required by the provisions of section 54F. He contended that these adverse findings

DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Development Consultants Pr. Commissioner Of Income- Pvt. Ltd., Development Tax-2, Kolkata. House, 24 Park Street, Vs. Kolkata-700016. (Pan: Aaacd8900F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anup Biswas, Ca Respondent By : Shr D. K. Sonawal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

302/- and thus, claimed for reduced amount of long term capital gain by Rs.15,09,157/-. Ld. Pr. CIT observed that Ld. AO has considered the request of the assessee based on the letter submitted by it which ought to have been done only through filing of a revised return and not by way of a letter

MEDICARE TPA SERVICE (I) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOL - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

302 Sector 2(c), Bidhannagar, Durgapur obtained by it on lease from the Govt. of West Bengal through a lease deed dt. 7th April, 2009 and that the capital gains arising out of this transaction has not been offered to taxation by the assessee and that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the same b) That

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

302 has held that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it under the direction

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

302 has held that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it under the direction

K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as that of the assessee, both are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 115JB.” K. B. Capital Ltd. AY 2007-08 10. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is not arising out of the order of CIT(A), hence, this issue cannot be adjudicated and this ground cannot be raised by revenue. On query from the Bench, Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that no such ground

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. K. B. CAPITAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as that of the assessee, both are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 115JB.” K. B. Capital Ltd. AY 2007-08 10. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is not arising out of the order of CIT(A), hence, this issue cannot be adjudicated and this ground cannot be raised by revenue. On query from the Bench, Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that no such ground

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

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-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

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

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

gain knowledge and not the purpose of enjoying the benefit of food and lodging. The CBDT Circular No.8/2005 in answer to Q.NO.11 has clarified that one has to go by the primary purpose of the expenditure. In the case of composite fee, it is difficult to apportion the component of ITA Nos.1866 -1868,1870 & 1869/Kol/2014 Tata Global Beverages Limited