EMAMI INDRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

gains accordingly by invoking provisions of sec 52 (2). However the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkota finally held that "there is no finding by any of the authorities that the assessee had actually received more as consideration than what the assessee had declared. The said section has no application in the case of honest and bonofide transaction. A transaction

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain derived from sale of shares was\nclaimed exempt u/s 54F of the Act. The AO however denied the\nexemption on three grounds. The first and foremost reason given by\nthe AO is applicability of proviso to Section 54F(1) of the Act. The\nproviso below sub-section (1) of Section 54F lays down certain\ndisqualification for claiming exemption

SHIB NARAYAN KSHETTRY -HUF,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-38(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 55(3) statutorily prescribes the cost to be equal to the market value on the date of acquisition. This being the position, capital gain is not excluded even on the plea that value of the asset in respect of which capital gain is to be charged was incapable of being ascertained. Subsequently the High Court of Punjab & Haryana

M/S TITAGARH INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY M/S BHATPARA PAPERS LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Gains” was assessed and this carry forward was also permitted by the AO u/s. 74 of the Act. 11 Titagarh Industries Ltd.., AY- 20132-13 The foregoing facts, therefore, put beyond any doubt that prior to completion of assessment, the AO had indeed conducted examination of the relevant facts culminating in assessment of short term capital loss incurred on sale

M/S JALAN CEMENT WORKS LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jalan Cement Works V/S. Cit, Kolkata-1 Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No Aayakar Bhawan, 202, 81, Netji Subhas Road, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 001 Square, Kolkata- [Pan No.: Aaacj6788R] 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2003 is curative in nature and would therefore apply retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.1988.” In the instant case, the principal business of the assessee is trading in shares as held that there was loss of Rs. 1.80 crores from the trading of the shares and M/s. Jalan Cement Works Ltd Page 13 income from

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

gain! loss on sale of shares in Unno Industries; 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court and in accordance with the amendment made to Section 263 of the Act with effect from 01.06./.015, I hold that

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs. 33.82L). Thus, even if TDS was deducted on entire other income, there was a short credit income. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (b) One of the reasons for selection of scrutiny was mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A (2) (b) reported in Audit report (Form 3CEB) and ITR. However

KAUSHAL KISHORE BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-45(1), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

gains / loss ass genuineness as causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. We notice in these circumstances that this tribunal’s co- ordinate bench’s decision in batch of appeals M/s Gitash Tikmani, HUF vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-28(4) Kolkata ITA No. 01 to 04/Kol/2019, ITA No.05/Kol/2019 & ITA No.609/Kol/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Kaushal Kishore Bihani

HILL QUEEN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

capital, the gift received and sale of jewellery, the income from business etc., without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever . He directed the income tax etc., without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever . He directed the income tax etc., without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever . He directed the income tax officer to do officer to do fresh assessment after making proper enquiry

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:-

gains "arose" from the transfer of a capital asset so as to attract Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act. 6.4. When the assessee pleaded both the grounds and has furnished copy of the unregistered JDA before the ld. Pr. CIT and also furnished a copy of the showcause notice issued by the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (ADDA

ANKIT GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to M/s. Dynamic Equities Pvt. Ltd. for verification of the said 133(6) of the Act to M/s. Dynamic Equities Pvt. Ltd. for verification of the said 133(6) of the Act to M/s. Dynamic Equities Pvt. Ltd. for verification of the said transactions of sale of shares

DCIT(EXAMPTION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAA SARASWATI GYAN MANDIR EDUCATION SOCIETY , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2002/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit(Exemption), Circle- Vs. Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir 1(1), Kolkata

366 ITR 51,will hold good, wherein it was held that the claim of depreciation is to be allowed even if the cost of the asset is treated as application. Findings of the Hon`ble Court is given below: “Section 11, read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable or religious trust - Income from property held under

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

capital gains for the year under consideration and added to the income. The Ld. AO noticed that the assessee had filed only Balance Sheet and P&L Account along with the schedule of fixed asset as on 31.03.2020 in which there appears no land and since the requirement of land is essential for construction of a building, hence the claim

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

gain! loss on sale of shares in Unno Industries; 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court and in accordance with the amendment made to Section 263 of the Act with effect from 01.06./.015, I hold that

RAVISH LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

gain! loss on sale of shares in Unno Industries; 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court and in accordance with the amendment made to Section 263 of the Act with effect from 01.06./.015, I hold that

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

gain! loss on sale of shares in Unno Industries; 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court and in accordance with the amendment made to Section 263 of the Act with effect from 01.06./.015, I hold that

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

gain! loss on sale of shares in Unno Industries; 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court and in accordance with the amendment made to Section 263 of the Act with effect from 01.06./.015, I hold that

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

gain! loss on sale of shares in Unno Industries; 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court and in accordance with the amendment made to Section 263 of the Act with effect from 01.06./.015, I hold that