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

50C on the said amount and reduced therefrom the cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee and thereby made addition of Rs Rs. 76,04,62,428/-as capital gains. On appeal, the Ld CIT(A) held that the transfer of property by giving development rights took place in assessment year 2009-10. The CIT(A) also held that

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

50C on the said amount and reduced therefrom the cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee and thereby made addition of Rs Rs. 76,04,62,428/-as capital gains. On appeal, the Ld CIT(A) held that the transfer of property by giving development rights took place in assessment year 2009-10. The CIT(A) also held that

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

section 263 which says ‘commissioner may call for and examined the records of the proceeding if he consider any order passed there in, by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest if revenue’ whereas in present case the AO had already conducted the inquiry, allowed the deductions as permissible. 4. That

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain u/s. 50C of the Act of Rs.5,29,39,153/- by holding that leasehold right on land are not within the purview of section 50C. 2

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

50C. Despite recognizing that the transfer of business assets cannot be counted as capital gain under section 45 of the Act in his order, the AO incorrectly interpreted the gain as long-term capital 50 for the reasons best known to him. gain by not considering section 50 for the reason best known to him. 6.8 In light

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains and the assessee had objected to the valuation adopted for the purpose of stamp duty. The Ld. AO referred the matter to the DVO under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Act while the matter should have been referred u/s 50C(2

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 50C. The Id. Counsel for the assessee has also invited our attention to the letter dated 23-12-2016 (copy placed at page 18 of the paper book), wherein the following explanation was offered by the assessee in this regard:- "4. In the computation of the short-term capital gain on the sale of the flat at 5, Lala

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

50C of\nthe Act by denying the benefit of Section 2(19AA) r.w. Section 47(vi) of the Act. Since we have\nupheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings holding the scheme of demerger to be compliant with Section\n2(19AA) r.w. Section 47(vi) of the Act, we agree with the Ld. CIT(A) deleting this direction\nissued

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

MALIKA ROY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

2) ought to have been considered in this search assessment under section 153A, but this proposition harbored by the ld. PCIT is contrary to the position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is pertinent to note that section 48 of the Income Tax Act contemplates mode of computation of long-term capital gain. It provides

ARATI RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. -3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

2) ought to have been considered in this search assessment under section 153A, but this proposition harbored by the ld. PCIT is contrary to the position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is pertinent to note that section 48 of the Income Tax Act contemplates mode of computation of long-term capital gain. It provides

SAMIT RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

2) ought to have been considered in this search assessment under section 153A, but this proposition harbored by the ld. PCIT is contrary to the position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is pertinent to note that section 48 of the Income Tax Act contemplates mode of computation of long-term capital gain. It provides

SMT.SHYAMALI DAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 50C(2), because that will be very cumbersome exercise upon the assessee considering the smallness of the amount, if any, to be taxable under the head “long-term capital gain

SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

gains under this anti-avoidance provision. In our humble understanding, it is a case of a curative amendment to take care of unintended consequences of the scheme of Section 50C. It makes perfect sense, and truly reflects a very pragmatic approach full of compassion and fairness, that just because there is a small variation between the stated sale consideration

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

50C of the Act would enable the Revenue to bring to tax by way of deemed capital gain difference between the stamp valuation and the sale price of a capital asset. For obvious reasons, this provision would not apply in case of a builder for whom such immovable property is in nature of stock in trade and not capital asset

NIRMAL SANTRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 50C of the Act. We notice that the assessee is an individual and filed ITR Form No. 3 on 01.11.2019. In the column of computation of capital gain appearing in the ITR Form No. 3, the assessee has disclosed the transaction of long term capital gain. In the said detail which is appearing in the back side of page

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as\nfar as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the\npurpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those\nsections:\n[Provided also that in case of property being referred to in the second proviso to\nsub

RENU BOTHRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 46,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

gains under this anti-avoidance provision. In our humble understanding, it is a case of a curative amendment to take care of unintended consequences of the scheme of Section 50C. It makes perfect sense, and truly reflects a very pragmatic approach full of compassion and fairness, that just because there is a small variation between the stated sale consideration