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

41 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust transactions as bogus or accommodation in nature. No such exercises have been carried out at any stage by the Revenue authority. Though the assessee has placed material on record to show

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

41 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust transactions as bogus or accommodation in nature. No such exercises have been carried out at any stage by the Revenue authority. Though the assessee has placed material on record to show

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

41 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust transactions as bogus or accommodation in nature. No such exercises have been carried out at any stage by the Revenue authority. Though the assessee has placed material on record to show

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

41 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust transactions as bogus or accommodation in nature. No such exercises have been carried out at any stage by the Revenue authority. Though the assessee has placed material on record to show

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains was not directly\nutilized for construction. The Ld.AR took us through the provisions\nof Section 54F of the Act and submitted that, Section 54F does not\npostulate that the construction has to begin on a particular date.\nAccording to Ld. AR, the only condition to be satisfied to avail the\nexemption is that, construction of house must be completed

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 10(38) of I.T. Act 1961 for long term capital gain of Rs. 68,87,029/- earned by your appellant on sale of 26000 shares of NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. (3) Ld. Income Tax Officer has erred in law as well in fact in denying conclusion on transaction of so called penny stocks without providing to your appellant

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 10(38) of I.T. Act 1961 for long term capital gain of Rs. 68,87,029/- earned by your appellant on sale of 26000 shares of NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. (3) Ld. Income Tax Officer has erred in law as well in fact in denying conclusion on transaction of so called penny stocks without providing to your appellant

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

gain/ loss on sale of property. Accordingly, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued, served and duly responded by the assessee. The ld. AO on perusal of the details and documents filed by the assessee observed that assessee has transferred property during the year which was purchased in F.Y. 2005-06 for ₹1,65,68,750/- the index cost

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

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

gains should be made to acquire another capital asset. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata has erred in coming to conclusion that utilization of corpus fund of Rs.8,71,03,846/- towards charitable activities is in contravention of section 11(1)(d) of the Act although the corpus fund was utilized

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

gain it was observed that the assessee has paid taxes treating it to be long term capital asset and paid concessional tax rate as provided u/s 112 of the Act. Income assessed at Rs.519,61,39,830/-. 5.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 6. Aggrieved revenue is now in appeal before this

THE BARANAGAR JUTE FACTORY PLC,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1149/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Baranagar Jute Factory Plc Principal Cit-1, Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite-213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aabct0134C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri G.H. Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pr. Cit”], Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 28/03/2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit U/S 263 Of The Act Through The Various Grounds Of Appeal. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dt. 31/03/2016. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Upon Perusal Of The Assessment Records, Observed That The Assessing Officer Has Not Examined The Four Issues Which Were Discussed By The Ld. Pr. Cit In The Revisionary Order Which Are Extracted Below:- “2. On A Perusal Of The Assessment Record Of The Assessee, It Was Observed As Under:

Section 145A(b) of the Act, is not correct. 4.2. The ld. A/R submitted that nature of interest on enhanced compensation of land partook the character of long term capital gain and not income from other sources as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in 128 Taxman

HARJINDER SINGH GILL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-40(3)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

41,326/- as share of the assessee by\ntreating the same as sale of property by the assessee and accordingly,\nshow cause notice was issued which was replied by the assessee. In\nthe said reply the assessee submitted that the land was given to M/s\nMonark Dealcom Pvt. ltd. for joint development and no money was\never received

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

gain anything from delaying this appeal. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) has observed that period of delay does not matter. It is the I.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta 5 quality of the explanation. If some valid reason is there

MANISH PARASRAMPURIA,KOLKATA vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

Capital Gain of Rs.39,41,595/- is genuine and bonafide transaction, as such, the same is liable to be taxed at Special Rate u/s. 111A of the Act.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing ground nos. 4 and 5 which deal with merit of the case and that he is restricting

SRI SNEHASISH BHAUMIK,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court then, the Hon'ble Courts were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression has to be construed liberally. We may make reference to the following observations

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

capital gain has been invested in purchase of flat before the time available for filing the return u/s 139 and thus eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act even if the sale deed was executed subsequently. He has further erred in observing that assessee has failed to produce documentary evidence in support of claim ignoring that the same