D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

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

capital gain, as the case may be, will be charged under section 54B(2) of the Act. 9. The Assessee

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned 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. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

gain arising from the sale of such land is exempt. Further it is claimed that even if agricultural land sold during the year are considered as capital asset then also assessee is eligible to claim exemption under section 54B

RACHANA TODI,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

Capital Gains’ at PB – 20 to demonstrate and verify that no such claim u/s 54B of the Act was made in the return which is reported as ‘0’ in Clause A(1)(d) of the said schedule against the nomenclature ‘Deduction under section

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Aayakar V/S. Patton Developers Pvt. Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Ltd., 3C, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 016 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabct 2076 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections [***] [54, 54B

ACIT,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections [***] [54, 54B

SRI AMITAVA BANERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 567/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Amitava Banerjee.............................……………………………………………..Appellant C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Chartered Accountants, A-4, Nandalal Bithi, City Centre, Ground Floor, Durgapur – 713 216 [Pan : Ahnpb 7336 E] D.C.I.T., Cir - 2...................………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Aayakar Bithi, Durgapur – 713 216 Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Ca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 01, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 05, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals), Durgapur Dated 18.01.2017 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts, In Not Giving Any Decision On Ground No 1 Which Read As Follows: I. That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Bad In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Cit(A) Has Likewise Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs. 23,77,816/- (Wrongly Stated In Ground As Rs. 13,90,737/-) Being Profit On Sale Of Agricultural Land. 3. That The Cit(A) Has Likewise Further Erred In Confirming Following Adhoc Disallowances Made By Assessing Officer. (A) Out Of Car Expenses Rs. 25,000/- (B) Out Of Maintenance Cost Of Officer Equipment Rs. 50,000/- (C) Expenses On Staff Training Rs. 88,400/- (D) Loss On Sale Of Asset Rs. 34,679/-

capital gain arising from the sale of land was claimed to be exempt by the assessee under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer, however, found that neither the land sold by the assessee nor the land purchased by him was having any facility for residence in as much as there was no construction over them

D.C.I.T CIR - 7,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. BHAGIRATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

capital gains to the total income of assessee. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by AO by observing as under:- “This ground of appeal of the appellant is directed against the action of the AO in applying the provisions of section 50B of the Income

SAKTI DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.110/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sakti Dasgupta………..……………....................…...……………....Appellant Sakti Dasgupta Gd 277, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700106. [Pan: Acrpd0675M] Vs. Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.…………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Quantum Of Deduction Allowable To The Assessee U/S 54F Of The Act On Account Of Purchase Of New Residential House.

capital gains) was duly invested by the assessee in purchase of new residential house. 5. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied the findings of the lower authorities. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. It has been held time and again that the provisions of section 54F are beneficial provisions intending