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) and 74 of the Act. The Ld. A.R submitted that conjoint reading

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40,817/-. The assessee applied the capital gain to the extent of\n5,46,52,500/- on payment of purchase of land, architect fee and\ndeposit in capital gain account scheme as detailed above. The assessee\nwas granted provisional allotment of land as per agreement with\nUrbana on 01.09.2015, to whom ₹2,80,70,000/- was paid. We also\nnote

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

capital gain from the sale of shares as bogus. It is the submission that considering the above submissions the addition of Rs. 16,40,62,615/- be deleted in full and the grounds of appeal of the appellant are allowed.” 9.1. Further, as regards the remaining three assessee(s) the alleged LTCG is from sale of equity shares of Radford

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

capital gain from the sale of shares as bogus. It is the submission that considering the above submissions the addition of Rs. 16,40,62,615/- be deleted in full and the grounds of appeal of the appellant are allowed.” 9.1. Further, as regards the remaining three assessee(s) the alleged LTCG is from sale of equity shares of Radford

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

capital gain from the sale of shares as bogus. It is the submission that considering the above submissions the addition of Rs. 16,40,62,615/- be deleted in full and the grounds of appeal of the appellant are allowed.” 9.1. Further, as regards the remaining three assessee(s) the alleged LTCG is from sale of equity shares of Radford

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

capital gain from the sale of shares as bogus. It is the submission that considering the above submissions the addition of Rs. 16,40,62,615/- be deleted in full and the grounds of appeal of the appellant are allowed.” 9.1. Further, as regards the remaining three assessee(s) the alleged LTCG is from sale of equity shares of Radford

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

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

section 54F(1)\nwhich says that \"net consideration\", in relation to the transfer of a capital\nasset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a\nresult of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure\nincurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.\nIn CIT vs. Miss Piroja C. Patel

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]

40,978/- was claimed as exempt u/s 54/54F of the Act as the said capital gain was invested in the construction of new property as is apparent from the construction agreement dated 14.07.2014 with M/s Canopy Estates (P) Ltd., Canopy house, No. 969, 5th “A” cross, HRBR, 1st Block, Bangalore-560043 regarding the purchase of property at E1/10, 10th Floor

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

Capital Gain (LTCG") on sale of both land and build- ing without appreciating that the building formed part of block of assets and hence as per provisions of Section 43(6) only 'moneys payable" in respect of such building was required to be reduced from the relevant block of assets. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

Capital Gain (LTCG") on sale of both land and build- ing without appreciating that the building formed part of block of assets and hence as per provisions of Section 43(6) only 'moneys payable" in respect of such building was required to be reduced from the relevant block of assets. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

VENERABLE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT,KOL-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.459/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd....................…...……………....Appellant 6, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Jorbagan, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aaacv8673M] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-1, Kolkata…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Aayush Kedia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 14.03.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Vide Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2018-19 Declared Total Income Of Rs.1,09,24,210/- Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Carried Out U/S 143(3) Of The Act. However, Later On, The Ld. Pr. Cit In Exercising Of His Revision

section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Besides this, the assessee earned a short-term capital gain of Rs. 40

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

gains of business. Relevant extract from the judgement reported in 147 taxmann.com 285 is as under: “Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee states that in view of the amendment vide the Finance Act, 2022 with retrospective effect from 1-4-2005 to section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the present appeal

GILT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

40,000 shares of Shree Shaleen Textiles Ltd at a price @ Page 4 of 26 I.T.A. No.: 1447/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gilt Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Rs.56.75 on 17/01/2014 - which when reduced to @ Rs.32.50, the assessee bought further 35,000 shares. However, thereafter there was no sign of revival and to avoid more loss, the assessee was forced to sale

SKYBRIDGE REAL ESTATES LLP,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Skybridge Real Estates Llp Dcit, Circle -34, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Mangalam-A, 5Th Floor, Room Shanti Pally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. No.507, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvfs7139R Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

40,464/- for A.Y. 2017-18 and has sold these shares in A.Y. 2018-19 and thus offering said income as business income from operation of sale of shares. The assessee has also shown the income of ₹5,70,98,591/- from sale of investments in its profit and loss account. The ld. AO further noted that in the computation

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 10th February, 2016 for 1y 2013-14 & 20th October, 2016 for A.Y. 2014-15. 02. As the issue raised are common and pertains to same assessee, these appeals have been heard together and being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 10th February, 2016 for 1y 2013-14 & 20th October, 2016 for A.Y. 2014-15. 02. As the issue raised are common and pertains to same assessee, these appeals have been heard together and being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity

EQUITABLE MARKETING ASSOCIATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-30, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

40,638/- and interest U/s 234D at Rs.1,32,706/-, in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such interests were at all chargeable. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant craves leave

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains and the assessee had objected to the valuation adopted for the purpose of stamp duty. The Ld. AO referred the matter to the DVO under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Act while the matter should have been referred u/s 50C(2) of the Act. It was argued that sub-rule (2A) of section 142 relates