KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

47,217/-. The income earned from investments and short term capital gains (against which no expenses have been shown) is almost 5 times from the business income against which all the establishment and other expenses have been claimed. The appellant has not claimed any expenditure even on short term capital gain which would have reduced income chargeable at the rate

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)

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 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the sums of Rs 5,18,754/- and Rs 44,01,695/- which has been accepted by the revenue and this goes to prove that

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)

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 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the sums of Rs 5,18,754/- and Rs 44,01,695/- which has been accepted by the revenue and this goes to prove that

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)

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 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the sums of Rs 5,18,754/- and Rs 44,01,695/- which has been accepted by the revenue and this goes to prove that

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)

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 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the sums of Rs 5,18,754/- and Rs 44,01,695/- which has been accepted by the revenue and this goes to prove that

EMAMI INDRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

capital gains. Section 47 of the Income –tax Act provides that transfer of a capital asset by a holding company

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains with the help of sections 49 and 47 of the Act but did not press the technical aspect

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains with the help of sections 49 and 47 of the Act but did not press the technical aspect

RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

47 does not provide any exception that transfer of long term equity shares are not treated as transfer for the purpose of Section 45. Section 48 provides for computation of capital gain.After perusing the aforesaid sections conjointly and together ,we find that nowhere any exclusion or exception has been provided to the long term capital gain

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

47)(v) of the Act. The Commissioner then read Section 45 of the Act to imply that capital gains tax was 10 Smt. Sarbani

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

47)(v) of the Act. The Commissioner then read Section 45 of the Act to imply that capital gains tax was 10 Smt. Sarbani

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 2(47) of the Ac of the Act and on various case-law for the proposition that law for the proposition that transfer of tenancy rights would tantamount to transfer of capital asset. He submitted transfer of tenancy rights would tantamount to transfer of capital asset. He submitted transfer of tenancy rights would tantamount to transfer of capital asset

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

47) of the Act and computed long term capital loss on transfer of the said rights at Rs.36,60,000/- in AY 2015-16. The said investment being a capital asset and disclosed as such in the audited accounts of the company was duly disclosed before the department in AY 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and assessments

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

gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The transfer is defined under section 2(47) of the Act as under: 2(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital

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)

47,480/- in spite of the fact that the same was held for more than 12 months. 3. THAT the Ld. CT(A) was wrong and incorrect in confirming the addition of Rs.9,76,951/- in respect of interest. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition without considering the submissions made before him. 4. FOR 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)

47,480/- in spite of the fact that the same was held for more than 12 months. 3. THAT the Ld. CT(A) was wrong and incorrect in confirming the addition of Rs.9,76,951/- in respect of interest. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition without considering the submissions made before him. 4. FOR 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)

47,480/- in spite of the fact that the same was held for more than 12 months. 3. THAT the Ld. CT(A) was wrong and incorrect in confirming the addition of Rs.9,76,951/- in respect of interest. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition without considering the submissions made before him. 4. FOR that

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)

47,480/- in spite of the fact that the same was held for more than 12 months. 3. THAT the Ld. CT(A) was wrong and incorrect in confirming the addition of Rs.9,76,951/- in respect of interest. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition without considering the submissions made before him. 4. FOR that