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

45. (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D,54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F , 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which

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]

5. The key issue that arises for consideration is whether the first proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act would restrict the benefit of investment of capital gains in bonds to that financial year during which the property was sold or it applies to any financial year during the six months period. 6. For better understanding of the issue

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5,48,40,817/-, on which the deduction u/s 54 of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 (the Act) has been claimed in the return filed in form ITR-2\nand only Long-Term Capital Gain to the extent of ₹1,88,317/- was\noffered to tax. The Id. AO noted that the said capital gain was utilized\nby purchase

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. Thus, the only issue, which is raised and has to be examined, is whether the\nrespondent-assessee can be denied benefit of Section 54F because construction of the\nhouse had commenced before the sale of the shares i.e., on 17th September, 2008.\n6. Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal have relied upon decisions of Allahabad High\nCourt and Karnataka High

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

CAPITAL GAIN\nSale of Items as per list enclosed\n45,45,100\nLess: (cost of acquisition etc.)\n(-) 1741068\nIndexed Cost of Acquisition\n2804032\nINCOMEFROM OTHER SOURCE\nINCOME FROMINTEREST\nInterest from Saving Bank A/c\nS/B Int.\n63565\nInterest on F.d. with banks\nF.D Int\n15885.\nINCOME FROMOTHERS\nLIC commission\n79,450\n85370\n85,370\nGROSS TOTAL INCOME\nLess:- Deduction under

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

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

section 55(2)(a) of I T Act as amended by Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 for the purpose of capital gain where Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the receipt of compensation amounting to Rs.7,10,35,264/- in the nature of capital receipt on relinquishment of all rights of business operation in the Hotel Lanka Oberoi

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

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

section 55(2)(a) of I T Act as amended by Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 for the purpose of capital gain where Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the receipt of compensation amounting to Rs.7,10,35,264/- in the nature of capital receipt on relinquishment of all rights of business operation in the Hotel Lanka Oberoi

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

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

section 55(2)(a) of I T Act as amended by Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 for the purpose of capital gain where Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the receipt of compensation amounting to Rs.7,10,35,264/- in the nature of capital receipt on relinquishment of all rights of business operation in the Hotel Lanka Oberoi

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]

45,540/- after making allowance of index cost of acquisition of Rs.34,54,460/-. During the year, the assessee has also sold equity shares of two companies viz. M/s. Tuni Textiles Ltd. and M/s. Blue Circle Services Limited on which the assessee had incurred loss of Rs.1,87,25,176/-. The above STCG was set off against LTCG realized from

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

45,540/- after making allowance of index cost of acquisition of Rs.34,54,460/-. During the year, the assessee has also sold equity shares of two companies viz. M/s. Tuni Textiles Ltd. and M/s. Blue Circle Services Limited on which Page 7 of 26 I.T.A. No.: 1447/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gilt Commodities Pvt. Ltd. the assessee had incurred loss