JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

capital gain arising out of sale of these apartments in the new residential house, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 54 of the Act.Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) needs to be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs.22,87,429/-. 12. In the result

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

capital gain arising out of sale of these apartments in the new residential house, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 54 of the Act.Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) needs to be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs.22,87,429/-. 12. In the result

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LGW LTD., NORTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 4(1) ". Secondly, it must be " computed in the manner laid down in the Act ". If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge.” 36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter took note of the fact that any " capital gains " arising between April

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The Id. CIT (A) noted that the assessee has not constructed a residential house within a period of three years after the date of transfer. The Id. CIT (A) noted the date of transfer as on 15.06.2016, and the statutory period for consideration of the house expired

LAKSHMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD37(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.01/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, “Sparsh”4Th Floor, 35/8, Ward-37(3), Kolkata- Poddopukur Road, Kolkata- 700001 700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acvpa 3271 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Subhro Das, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2004-2005, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, In Appeal No.1219/Cit(A)- Xxiv/Set-Aside/37(3)/12-13, Dated 19.12.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee’S Income Tax Return For Assessment Year 2004-05 Was Assessed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Ao Detected That The Assessee Invested In A Property & Not Shown The Amount Of Capital Gain Of Rs.13,45,760/-. Therefore, The Ao Presumed That There Was An Excess Claim Of Rs.13,45,760/- U/S.54F Of It Act. Hence, Believing The Reason That Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment For The Year, The Ao Has Issued Notice U/S.148/147 Of The It Act. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Invested In A Property & Thus Claimed The Excess Amount

46A of the I. T. Rules after giving proper opportunity to the A.O. The copy of the Remand Report given to the A/R for rejoinder. The A/R filed rejoinder which is as under:- "In the said Remand Report, the learned assessing officer stated ''that there is no irregularity in the submission of the assessee" based on our submissions and other

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

46A, Radha Bazar Lane, Vs Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (PAN: AAATO0629B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Siddarth Agrwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 08.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the revision order of the Ld. Commissioner

ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(29B) profit earned on sale of shares of companies sold after holding for more than a year is assessable as Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee submits that it has not resorted to any trading In M/s. Sri Ram Commercial Co. share & securities involving frequent transactions of purchase and sale, profit from which alone can be assessable

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

gains of business or profession' in the context of computing the gross total income of assessee company. If any specific item is to be considered differently, the same would have been specifically stated in Explanation to Section 73 as in the case of section 32A(3), 32AB(3) etc. In Explanation to section 32A(3) it has specifically mentioned

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT SURJIT KAUR UBEROI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 181/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Surjit Kaur Uberoi [Pan: Aanup 4301 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 181/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Surjit Kaur Uberoi -Vs- Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata [Pan: Aanup 4301 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.02.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 ITA No.181/Kol/2016& C.O.13/Kol/2017 Smt. Surjit Kaur Oberoi A.Yr.2012-13 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in directing

ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MID LAND PROJECTS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 50C for the purpose of computing capital gains on sale of the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings, we hold that the Learned CIT(A) is right in restricting the capital gains at Rs. 3,56,354/- as against Rs. 45,62,018/- made by the Learned AO. Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised

DCIT, CIRCLE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BAGREES INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2006-07 D.C.I.T., Circle-9, -Versus- M/S. Bagrees Investments Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaccb 1528 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 J.C.I.T., (Osd)Circle-9, -Versus- M/S. Bagri Synthetics Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaccb 9912 A) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Jcit. Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Gautam Banerjee, Ca Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 11 .01.2017

46A of the LT. Rule, 1962. 2. That "on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 1,29,78,906/- added as long term capital gain. 3. That "on the facts and circumstances of the case

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BAGRI SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2006-07 D.C.I.T., Circle-9, -Versus- M/S. Bagrees Investments Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaccb 1528 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 J.C.I.T., (Osd)Circle-9, -Versus- M/S. Bagri Synthetics Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaccb 9912 A) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Jcit. Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Gautam Banerjee, Ca Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 11 .01.2017

46A of the LT. Rule, 1962. 2. That "on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 1,29,78,906/- added as long term capital gain. 3. That "on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

ITO, WARD-31(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. NAMITA CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 54F of the Act on all the four flats. Similar was the ruling of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of V.R.Karpagam (supra). The CIT(A) following the decisions cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee held that no capital gain was assessable in the hands of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved by the order

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

gain u/s 46A. Therefore, when money is lost due to permanent diminution of value of equity shares, it is not covered u/s 36 of I.T. Act, which is a deduction to be allowed in case of events which has a direct link to income to be computed u/s 28 under Part D of Chapter IV of I.T. Act. The claim

ACIT, CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. RESHMI P LOYALKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the Cross Objection of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain till 31.7.2012, copy of electricity bill of new residential houses and other relevant documents. The assessee stated that she looked out for a comparatively much smaller plot for building her residential house. Inspite of her best efforts, she could not locate a single plot of desired size at desired location. Hence she bought 3 adjacent plots of land

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We do not see any additional evidence admitted in lower appellate proceedings of all much less in violation of said statutory provision. Its first substantive grievance raised in instant two appeals stands decline therefore. 4. Next comes Revenue’s second identical substantive grievance in both assessment years seeking to revive the Assessing Officer

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We do not see any additional evidence admitted in lower appellate proceedings of all much less in violation of said statutory provision. Its first substantive grievance raised in instant two appeals stands decline therefore. 4. Next comes Revenue’s second identical substantive grievance in both assessment years seeking to revive the Assessing Officer