THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains of business” in section 80P (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought by a cooperative society must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to Page 18 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains of business” in section 80P (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought by a cooperative society must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to Page 18 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), EXEMPTION , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 15 I.T.A. No.499/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Institute of Indian Foundrymen 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIA FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),EXEMPT, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

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]

2(14) as has been provided in (i) to (vi) to the said section. Further the gain arising from the transfer of long term capital asset is treated for long term capital gain chargeable to tax u/s 45 and section 47 does not provide any exception that transfer of long term equity shares are not treated as transfer

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

5 Shuvro Chattaraj, AY: 2015-16 another deduction u/s 54F for Rs. 43 (Forty three) Lakh. Subsequently, the return of income was selected for scrutiny on the following issues: a. Sale of property mismatch b. Mismatch in income/capital Gain on sale of land or building c. Deduction claimed under head Capital Gain. 7. The assessee was issued notice

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 gain is concerned may be deleted.” II. ITA No. 141/KOL/2020: “1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of case in relying merely on assessee's submission without appreciating the fact that the actual intention of the assessee was to increase the value of the property from Rs. 8.50 crores to 90 crores with

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 gain is concerned may be deleted.” II. ITA No. 141/KOL/2020: “1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of case in relying merely on assessee's submission without appreciating the fact that the actual intention of the assessee was to increase the value of the property from Rs. 8.50 crores to 90 crores with

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

gains under section 48 of the Act. Sub-clause (i) of that Section states that expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of capital asset has to be deducted from full value consideration received or accruing. Preamble of the Conveyance Deed executed by the assessee along with Shri Nita Basu reads as under :— 'THIS INDENTURE made this

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

capital gain tax can be levied. 12. For the completeness of the discussion, we may note that section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956 pertains to form of contents of balance-sheet and profit and loss account, sub-section (1) of Section 211 provided that every balance sheet of a company shall give true and fair view on the state

RAM NIRANJAN BANKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

2,81,04,250 Deduct: cost of construction paid to Developer for area set apart for Original Lessor (44,26,906) & indexed cost of land 60,22,089 not considered (15,95,183) Long term Capital gain on transfer of land proportionate to Developer’s allocation 4,65,63,334 5,42,02,854 3.3. As regards computation of capital

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

2) of the Act, i.e.\nto deposit the unpaid amount in a separate bank account under the\ncapital gain account scheme as the assessee had already\nappropriated the entire capital gain for purchase of new asset within\nstipulated time u/s 139(4) of the Act. The deposit was required to be\nmade, if mandatory, before the due date for filing

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

RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

capital gain as per the provisions of section 74(1)(b), it appears that the impugned Instruction of CBDT does not come to the aid of the assessee in any manner.” 5.1 This issue was not felt necessary to be discussed as part of the operative portion of this order since it pertains to a line of investigation 12 Russel