TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

2% charged during the assessment proceedings. Hence, Ground Nos. 2.0 to 2.7 in relation to corporate guarantee fee are partly allowed. 7. Ground Nos. 3.0 to 7.0 relate to application of section 50C without mandatorily referring the matter to the DVO. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee had shown 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]

Capital Gains arising to the assessee as her own share is required to be calculated by the AO as under: Sl. No. Narration Details 1. Sale consideration received The AO shall get the property valued at the earliest as discussed and the deemed sale consideration is to be taken as per Section 50C of the Act. 2

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]

Capital Gains arising to the assessee as her own share is required to be calculated by the AO as under: Sl. No. Narration Details 1. Sale consideration received The AO shall get the property valued at the earliest as discussed and the deemed sale consideration is to be taken as per Section 50C of the Act. 2

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

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

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

SMT.BARNALI DHAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Barnali Dhar Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata C/O. S.D. Verma, Advocate, 2Nd Floor, 7, Vs. Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Pan: Ajppd 6989 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 10, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 10 Was Not Justified In Not Deleting A Sum Of Rs. 9933057/- Being The Amount Wrongly Included By The Appellant Under The Head Capital Gain, While Filing Return Of Income Whereas As Per Section 54F No Amount Is Liable To Be Taxed. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Or Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal At Hearing Stage.”

capital gains so computed under section 45 read with section 48 and section 50C of the Act. The decisions of the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the assessee. The subject issue was not for consideration before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and hence, the same doesn't support the case of the revenue

DR ABHIJIT GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Dr. Abhijit Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward-55(3), Kolkata

2 Dr. Abhijit Ghosh Assessment Year: 2010-11 269UA(f) of the Act as they were in possession of property under lease for a period of over 20 years as per lease agreement and hence the proportionate deemed FVC under section 50C of the Act should be adopted as deemed FVC in computing long term capital gains

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

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gain. Consequently, we allow the appeal, set aside order dated 15.02.1999 and answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee.” 3) Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT (2010) 195 taxmann 174 (P & H) wherein it was held as under : “Para 2 of Circular No. 471, dt. 15th Oct., 1986 describes the nature of right that an allottee acquires

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 47(v) Rs. 5,45,100/- (ii) Cost u/s 55(2)(b)(b)(ii) as on 01.04.1981 as per Rs. 1,35,38,000/- valuation report of Er. S K Bhagat, FIE(India) (iii) Conversion cost paid for making land & building Rs. 2,39,05,168/- freehold On 08.10.2010- Rs. 2

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 47(v) Rs. 5,45,100/- (ii) Cost u/s 55(2)(b)(b)(ii) as on 01.04.1981 as per Rs. 1,35,38,000/- valuation report of Er. S K Bhagat, FIE(India) (iii) Conversion cost paid for making land & building Rs. 2,39,05,168/- freehold On 08.10.2010- Rs. 2

RITZ SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

50C of the Act cannot be attracted. The distinction between a capital asset being 'land or building or both' and any 'right in land or building or both' is well recognized under the Act itself. My attention was drawn to Section 54D of the Act, which deals with certain cases in which capital gain on compulsory acquisition of land

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

capital gain. 31. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Though section 50C of the Act does not speak of any such variation in terms of percentage between value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty and the registration and the actual consideration received on transfer, keeping in view of the decision

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

ACIT, CIR-I, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. MRS HARMEET KAUR, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

2,54,80,000/- on 23.5.2012. The assessee after claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Act in the return offered capital gains of Rs 48,00,000/- in the return of income and paid taxes accordingly. The ld AO observed that the date of sale of old property was on 4.2.2011 and assessee had not submitted any proof of having