DCIT, CIRCLE - 6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LOKENATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

364 ITR 488 supra were factually distinguishable as the shares in that case were held for a long time and offered as long term capital gains and it was held that the amendment in Oct 2004 in the Act cannot be the sole criterion for shifting of heads of income as the intention of the assessee is important. The case

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

capital gain, if required, on receipt of the valuation report from the DVO. Therefore, Grounds No. 7,8,9,10 and 11 are dismissed” 5.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. AO rejected the claim of cost of improvement to the land at Vishakhapatnam, which was used

M/S. STP LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, Kolkata M/S Stp Limited C/O. G.P. Agarwal & Associates, 7A, Kiran Shankar Ray Road, 2Nd Floor, Kol-1. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs6339M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

capital gain. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Subsequently assessee signed another Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] with M/s. ARA Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. on 07.02.2008. However, the terms and conditions of this agreement show that the second agreement is in nature of transfer of assessee's Lease hold Rights in favour of M/s. ARA Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., through

ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(29B) profit earned on sale of shares of companies sold after holding for more than a year is assessable as Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee submits that it has not resorted to any trading In M/s. Sri Ram Commercial Co. share & securities involving frequent transactions of purchase and sale, profit from which alone can be assessable

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

364/-. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has filed a petition under sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court on 11.06.2015 and the same was admitted on 16.06.2015. The ld. Counsel submitted that the same was communicated to the Regional Director vide letter dated 17.06.2015. Thereafter the Regional Director issued

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

SHRI RATAN KUMAR SAHA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1&2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Acit, Cir-49(1&2), Kolkata 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Vs. Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Vs. 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax, 1961 Dated 30.12.2016. Consequent To That Another Cross Appeal Is Also Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 154/Kol/2020 Against The Same Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Enumerated As Under: Assessee’S Ground: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Grossly Unjustified In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,69,590/- Under The Head A.Y. 2014-15

section 50C of the IT Act. However, the assessee had not disclosed any such information in his return. A.Y. 2014-15 3. During the course of hearing, the assessee accepted the transaction as a case of transfer of property on relinquishment of assets or extinguishment of right to claim as the asset is an agricultural land the gain

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI RATAN KUMAR SAHA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Acit, Cir-49(1&2), Kolkata 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Vs. Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Vs. 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax, 1961 Dated 30.12.2016. Consequent To That Another Cross Appeal Is Also Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 154/Kol/2020 Against The Same Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Enumerated As Under: Assessee’S Ground: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Grossly Unjustified In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,69,590/- Under The Head A.Y. 2014-15

section 50C of the IT Act. However, the assessee had not disclosed any such information in his return. A.Y. 2014-15 3. During the course of hearing, the assessee accepted the transaction as a case of transfer of property on relinquishment of assets or extinguishment of right to claim as the asset is an agricultural land the gain

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

364 ITR 634(Bom) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the Tribunal was not prevented in any manner and in law from considering purely legal issue for the first time especially when this legal issue went to the root of the matter. The Hon’ble court held that the Tribunal in such a situation should answer

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

364 ITR 634(Bom) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the Tribunal was not prevented in any manner and in law from considering purely legal issue for the first time especially when this legal issue went to the root of the matter. The Hon’ble court held that the Tribunal in such a situation should answer

ACIT, CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. RESHMI P LOYALKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the Cross Objection of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain till 31.7.2012, copy of electricity bill of new residential houses and other relevant documents. The assessee stated that she looked out for a comparatively much smaller plot for building her residential house. Inspite of her best efforts, she could not locate a single plot of desired size at desired location. Hence she bought 3 adjacent plots of land

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains of Rs.1,52,47,379/- and claimed the same as exempted from tax. The assessee also claimed to have added back interest on loan of Rs.14,21,34,269/- and de mat charges of ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 Rs.6,85,115/- relatable to exempted income and added

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains of Rs.1,52,47,379/- and claimed the same as exempted from tax. The assessee also claimed to have added back interest on loan of Rs.14,21,34,269/- and de mat charges of ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 Rs.6,85,115/- relatable to exempted income and added

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains of Rs.1,52,47,379/- and claimed the same as exempted from tax. The assessee also claimed to have added back interest on loan of Rs.14,21,34,269/- and de mat charges of ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 Rs.6,85,115/- relatable to exempted income and added

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains of Rs.1,52,47,379/- and claimed the same as exempted from tax. The assessee also claimed to have added back interest on loan of Rs.14,21,34,269/- and de mat charges of ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 Rs.6,85,115/- relatable to exempted income and added

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

section 195 of the Act for issuing NIL tax withholding Certificate. This application was rejected by the Assessing Officer as well as by the learned CIT(A). It was in these circumstances that the learned Delhi Bench of the Tribunal upheld the claim of the Revenue that it was for the Assessing Officer to determine what portion of the payments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

364 (Guj) and operative portion of the judgment is reproduced below:- “Therefore, it can be said that, current depreciation is deductible in the first place from the income of the business to which it relates. If such depreciation amount is in excess than the amount of the profits of that business, then such excess should be adjusted against the profits

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VINAYAK DEALERD PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

364. It has been held that in terms of section 14A(2) condition precedent for Assessing Officer to determine amount of expenditure incurred in relation to ITA No.2671/Kol/2013-M/s. Vinayak Dealers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 3 exempt income is that he must record his dissatisfaction with correctness of claim of expenditure made by assessee or with correctness of claim made by assessee