RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. In the instant case, the assessee had maintained dual portfolio and had received dividend income of Rs 21,07,894 , Rs 12,63,710/- , Rs 13,73,472/- and Rs 17,47,070/- for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. The assessee had declared long term capital gains for the Asst Years

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. In the instant case, the assessee had maintained dual portfolio and had received dividend income of Rs 21,07,894 , Rs 12,63,710/- , Rs 13,73,472/- and Rs 17,47,070/- for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. The assessee had declared long term capital gains for the Asst Years

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. In the instant case, the assessee had maintained dual portfolio and had received dividend income of Rs 21,07,894 , Rs 12,63,710/- , Rs 13,73,472/- and Rs 17,47,070/- for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. The assessee had declared long term capital gains for the Asst Years

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. In the instant case, the assessee had maintained dual portfolio and had received dividend income of Rs 21,07,894 , Rs 12,63,710/- , Rs 13,73,472/- and Rs 17,47,070/- for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. The assessee had declared long term capital gains for the Asst Years

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

6,43,723/- for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The relevant assessment years under appeal are 2006-07 and 2007-08 at which point of time , the provisions of Rule 8D were not in force and the same were made applicable only from

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

6,43,723/- for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The relevant assessment years under appeal are 2006-07 and 2007-08 at which point of time , the provisions of Rule 8D were not in force and the same were made applicable only from

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 263:- “6. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee. These observations were raised in the show cause notice, which is discussed hereunder:- (i) Long term capital gain(without STT):- The assessee claimed long term capital loss (without STT) of Rs.109,80,30,873/-on account of loss suffered from government securities(Rs.111

RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this sec 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise tion, unless the context otherwise requires— ** ** ** 12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd. Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd (5) "speculative transaction" means a transaction in which a contract

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

43 (Forty three) Lakh. Subsequently, the return of income was selected for scrutiny on the following issues: a. Sale of property mismatch b. Mismatch in income/capital Gain on sale of land or building c. Deduction claimed under head Capital Gain. 7. The assessee was issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 15.02.2017 to furnish the following details

INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

43(6) read with Section 50 of the Act. Accordingly, when the block of asset ceased to exist, the excess/gain arising, after adjustment of the premium received from long term leases from the WDV of the asset, was computed and shown by way of deemed 'Short Term Capital Gain

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT YAMINI KHANDELWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business income, Rs.25,09,735/- as short-term capital gains and Rs.18,26,601/- as long-term capital gains, which was subjected to verification by the ld. Assessing Officer. 11. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A, ld. CIT(A) held that

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SURAJ KHANDEL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business income, Rs.25,09,735/- as short-term capital gains and Rs.18,26,601/- as long-term capital gains, which was subjected to verification by the ld. Assessing Officer. 11. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A, ld. CIT(A) held that

SURAJ KHANDELWAL,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business income, Rs.25,09,735/- as short-term capital gains and Rs.18,26,601/- as long-term capital gains, which was subjected to verification by the ld. Assessing Officer. 11. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A, ld. CIT(A) held that

YAMINI KHANDEL WAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business income, Rs.25,09,735/- as short-term capital gains and Rs.18,26,601/- as long-term capital gains, which was subjected to verification by the ld. Assessing Officer. 11. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A, ld. CIT(A) held that

M/S SRINATH JI FURNISHING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

43. We are in broad agreement with the Karnataka High Court view as it is clear that the load capacity of an induction furnace unit is certainly relevant material referred to in Rule 3(2) to determine the capacity of the furnace installed. It is obvious that it is not necessary to state such load capacity in terms

RAIPUR STEEL CASTING INDIA (P)) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

43. We are in broad agreement with the Karnataka High Court view as it is clear that the load capacity of an induction furnace unit is certainly relevant material referred to in Rule 3(2) to determine the capacity of the furnace installed. It is obvious that it is not necessary to state such load capacity in terms

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-31(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DILIP B BESAI (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

43 (Cal) for the Asst Year 2007-08 had held as below:- '3. The Assessing Officer has laid stress on motive. To begin with motive is something, which is locked in the mind of the person. No direct evidence as regards motive is possible. Motive can be inferred from the conduct of the person concerned but that is bound

RAM NIRANJAN BANKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

43,164 1,68,17,757 Capital Gains 3,04,62,254 3,08,87,661 Add; Proportionate Capital Gains reduced from cost as per section 54 (1) (ii) 1,10,74,204 Short Term Capital Gain as per AO 4,19,61,865 Ram Niranjan Banka; A.Y. 2014-15 3.7. Total Long Term Capital Gains as per the assessee