SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

section 56(2)(x)(b) and added to the income of AY 2020-21. Since no reply was filed, therefore, a sum of Rs. 49,00,000/- was added on account of capital gains. As regards income from other sources, a sum of Rs.1,46,23,369/- was also added u/s. 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. RAHUL SARAF, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

section 54 of the Act despite the non-existence of any residential property on the plot of land sold by the assessee? 2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law by failing to provide opportunity to the assessing officer to cross-examine the documents produced by the assessee before him in contravention of Rule 46A of the income

RAHUL SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

section 54 of the Act despite the non-existence of any residential property on the plot of land sold by the assessee? 2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law by failing to provide opportunity to the assessing officer to cross-examine the documents produced by the assessee before him in contravention of Rule 46A of the income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SANTOSH PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Santosh Promoters Private O/O The Dcit, Cc-1(1), Limited Room No.305, 3Rd Floor, 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Gariahat, Kolkata-700029 Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs7546M Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Lakra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

capital gains’ is deleted. Santosh Promoters private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 08. Considering the facts of the above case and the order passed by the appellate authority, we are in full agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT (A) with regard to the difference being within the permissible limit as per third proviso to Section

KUSUM TATER,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 47(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains in respect of Unno Industries Ltd., which was treated as income from other charges at Rs. 63,20,942/- and another addition of Rs. 5,256/- was also made on account of undisclosed commission expenses treated as income from other sources and the total income was assessed at Rs. 66,45,220/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order

S.R.P. INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 144B of the Act dated 27.03.2022. Through this order, the following additions were made: (a) Rs. 19,06,266/- added on account of sale of shares of M/s Paulmech Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 2 S.R.P. Infocom Pvt. Ltd. (b) Rs. 1,63,50,000/- has been added on account of alleged unexplained investments in unlisted equity shares. It has also

ACIT, CIR.-29,, KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CR. SOCIETY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] I.T.A. No. 268/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Steel Authority Of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Pan: Aadas 9699 B Appellant Respondent Date Of Hearing 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2023 For The Assessee Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mrs. Puja Somani, Ca For The Revenue Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Order Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.12.2022 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’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gain from investments for AY 2011-12 which was reversed by the Ld. CIT(A) and held it as business income which action of the Ld. CIT(A) has not been challenged by the AO, so the finding of Ld CIT(A) that assessee is a trader of of shares and mutual funds crystallises. Therefore, applying the principle

ASHOK KUMAR MAITI,PANSKURA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER CIR 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gain or capital loss. The method of calculation of profit on delivery based share trading is totally incorrect, unjustified and bad in law. 2. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is obvious that the Assessing Officer and 1st Appellate Authority has not applied their mind in deciding that - Appellant being high salaried employee of Indian Oil Corporation

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital receipt in his hands and is not exigible to income\ntax\"\n\nWe have also gone through the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of Rajkot\nin the case of Vineet Kumar Raghavji Bhai Bhalodia vs. ITO reported in [2011] 140\nTTJ 58 (Rajkot) wherein it has been held as under:\n\n\"The expression Hindu Undivided Family

THE INDRA COMPANY LIMITED(AS SAUMYA TRADE & FISCAL SERVICES P. LTD. MERGED INTO THE INDRA CO. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(3),, KOLKATA

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

gains. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held as\nunder:\n“It is manifest that the consideration for the transfer of capital asset is what\nthe transferor receives in lieu of the asset he parts with, namely, money or\nmoney's worth and, therefore, the very asset transferred or parted with\ncannot be the consideration for the transfer

NITESH MANDHYAN LR HIRANAND MANDHYAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANICKTALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 68, accordingly, addition was to be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee had filed return of income showing total income of Rs.5,82,950/-. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2019. In response to the notices

ASIS SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 50(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains of ₹2,39,684/- to the returned income of the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹27,65,360/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued five notices for hearing but the assessee remained non-compliant to the notices

VAIBHAV DAS MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 90 of Income Tax Act 1961 for avoidance of double taxation and granting of credit of taxes paid outside India on income which is taxed outside India even after claiming the details of foreign tax credit in Income Tax Return filed before the Income Tax Authority. 7. For that AO and CIT (A) erred in not following the spirit

M.A. FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains of shares/equities and added to the total income of the assessee. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer determined the total assessed income of the assessee at Rs.2,16,07,140/-. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who issued 7 (seven) notices for hearing to the assessee but except for seeking

KRISHNENDU BIKASH JANA,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 27(1), , HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 143(2) of the Act, which also has been addressed by the Ld. CIT(A) only on the basis of the content of the assessment order. Considering the fact that before the Ld. AO also the assessee did not furnish any reply and the appeal was also not properly filed nor represented properly, as the issue related to investment

SHYAM GREENFIELD DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the application within the period of limitation Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC) also deliberated on the expression "sufficient cause" and held that ...The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

46A of the Income Tax Rules; and (3) The ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,35,500/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. First we take 1st & 2nd fold of grievances. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed

M/S. SETH B D GOYAL CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WARD - 1(3), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gaining any benefit by delaying the appeal. I.T.A. No.: 2267/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Seth B D Goyal Charitable Trust. 7. That the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Deponent Date: 15:06.2023 Sunil Kumar Jalan” In view of the affidavit filed, there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal