RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

3,61,35,000/- for land + ₹49,65,000/- for structure (building) and he assessee determined the Long Term Capital Loss at ₹12,35,377/- as under:- “Long Term Capital Gain/ (Loss) 1. Sale consideration ₹4,11,00,000/- Fair Market Value ₹9,03,42,619/ (u/s 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act)) Less: Indexed Cost

SWETA SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

45. Provided that the investment made on or after the 1st day of April, 2007 in the long-term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.' 7. On a plain reading of the above said provision, we are of the view that Section 54EC(1) of the Act restricts the time limit

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

45,83,180/- declared in the return for AY 2014-15 filed on 27.09.2014. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. The reason for selecting the case for scrutiny was for verifying suspicious transaction relating to long term capital gain on share, low net profit from share broking

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

45,83,180/- declared in the return for AY 2014-15 filed on 27.09.2014. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. The reason for selecting the case for scrutiny was for verifying suspicious transaction relating to long term capital gain on share, low net profit from share broking

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

45,83,180/- declared in the return for AY 2014-15 filed on 27.09.2014. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. The reason for selecting the case for scrutiny was for verifying suspicious transaction relating to long term capital gain on share, low net profit from share broking

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

45,83,180/- declared in the return for AY 2014-15 filed on 27.09.2014. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. The reason for selecting the case for scrutiny was for verifying suspicious transaction relating to long term capital gain on share, low net profit from share broking

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) years and/or make it habitable. The\nessence of said provision is to ensure that assessee who received capital gains would\ninvest same by constructing a residential house and once it is established that\nconsideration so received on transfer of his Long Term capital asset has invested in\nconstructing a residential house, it would satisfy the ingredients of Section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain is not to be charged under\nSection 45 of the said Act.\n24. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed. The questions framed above\nare answered in the affirmative and against the respondent revenue.\nThe first question is answered in the affirmative and the second question is answered in the negative. No costs.\n(iii) Similarly

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

MINAKSHI DAS,JALPAIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3),, SILIGURI

3 and 4 of the assessment\norder that the said money was deposited out of sale of jewellery\nwhich had been shown as income from long term capital gain in the\nreturn of income filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148\nof the Act as stated hereinabove. Therefore, the said income as per\nthe computation of income

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

gain under section 55 of the Act. Being aggrieved, both the parties have filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld.AR filed written submissions (in short APB) which are kept in the record. The ld.AR vehemently argued and placed that the issue is arising out of two agreements between the appellant and the Government of Iraq in 1980s

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

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

gain under section 55 of the Act. Being aggrieved, both the parties have filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld.AR filed written submissions (in short APB) which are kept in the record. The ld.AR vehemently argued and placed that the issue is arising out of two agreements between the appellant and the Government of Iraq in 1980s

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

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

gain under section 55 of the Act. Being aggrieved, both the parties have filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld.AR filed written submissions (in short APB) which are kept in the record. The ld.AR vehemently argued and placed that the issue is arising out of two agreements between the appellant and the Government of Iraq in 1980s

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

3. ITO vs. Indravadan Jain (HUF), ITA No. 4861 & 5168/Mum/2014, dt. 27.05.2016. 4. Pr. CIT v, Smt. Renu Aggarwal ITA 44 of 2022 dt. 06.07.2022 (All.) 5. ITO Vs. Smt. Renu Aggarwal, ITA Nos.: 204 & 20S/LKW /2020 (ITAT Luck) 6. PCIT vs. Dipansu Mahapatra 149 taxmann.com 99 (Orr.) 7. M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No. : 982/K/2018

SPLENDOUR VILLA MAKERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-12(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 734/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd.,……………Appellant Flat-4D, Lansdown Heights, 6, Sarat Bose Road, Bhowanipur, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aahcs9726M] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Circle-12(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25, 2024 O R D E R

45 of the Act has to be taken into account, it was not understood how in computing the Book Profit u/s. 115J of the Act, the assessee could exclude capital gain. It was opined that while computing Book Profit under the Company’s act the assessee has to include Capital Gain for computing Book Profit u/s. 115J. Even under clause

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

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

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

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

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

3. Before us, the ld. D/R filed written submissions dated 03.06.2024 through which the following facts have been placed before us: a) The poor financial condition of the assessee company in as much as the profit after tax was negligible at Rs. 1,049/- for AY 2013-14 and the said company had a loss