RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

Section 55(2), the objection raised by the appellant with reference to the AO's working of cost of acquisition is found to appellant with reference to the AO's working of cost of acquisition is found to appellant with reference to the AO's working of cost of acquisition is found to be unjustified. I find that the cost

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

capital gains. Accordingly the ground raised by the revenue in this regard for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 is dismissed. 6. ADDITION TOWARDS UNVERIFIED PURCHASES – Rs. 55,50,937/- GROUND NO. 2 IN ITA NO. 1064/Kol/2010 FOR AY 2006-07 The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee made purchases from the following parties :- Mayur

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

capital gains. Accordingly the ground raised by the revenue in this regard for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 is dismissed. 6. ADDITION TOWARDS UNVERIFIED PURCHASES – Rs. 55,50,937/- GROUND NO. 2 IN ITA NO. 1064/Kol/2010 FOR AY 2006-07 The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee made purchases from the following parties :- Mayur

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 55(2) of the Act, then the cost shall be taken as Nil. Hence the Assessing Officer was legally incorrect in his view. Thus, Hence the Assessing Officer was legally incorrect in his view. Thus, Hence the Assessing Officer was legally incorrect in his view. Thus, we uphold the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue

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

55,635 5,77,97,364 12,58,271 The assessee term capital as was deptt. gain Treated it L.T. capital loss of Rs.46,43,572/- after applying const. Indexation. Short term 12,58,271 capital gain (without STT) In this connection, the assessee has pointed out that the issue at hand was before the CIT(A). Needless

ACIT, CIRCLE - 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRADYUMNA DALMIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

55,489/- from sale of shares of M/s Texmaco Ltd which was acquired by him in Financial Year 2005-06 and kept as investment in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.3.2006. He further argued that the assessee had derived both long term as well as short term capital gains on sale of 2269 shares of Texmaco

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]

capital gain or loss has been provided in section 48 to 55. The mode and manner of computing the intra

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

gain of Rs 7,18,74,000/- in the facts of the case. The ld AO is accordingly directed to give benefit of the same to the assessee based on the correctness of the claim of brought forward loss figure made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 5.1 & 5.2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

gain of Rs 7,18,74,000/- in the facts of the case. The ld AO is accordingly directed to give benefit of the same to the assessee based on the correctness of the claim of brought forward loss figure made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 5.1 & 5.2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

M/S TRANS GLOBAL PLC( EARLY KNOWN AS MORAN HOLDINGS PLC),KOLKATA vs. D,I,T (IT) 3(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains in term of provision of section 55(2)(a) read with section 28(va) of the Act. The relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-23(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDIP ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

sections 2(42A), 47(iii), 49(1)(ii)(iii) and s. 55(2)(b)(ii) are read co-jointly then it appears that in law no "transfer" of a "capital ITA No.2864/Kol/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO Ward-23(3), Kol. vs. Sudip Roy Page 9 asset" is considered to take place on inheritance and succession. The liability for capital gain

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

capital gains u/s 45 of Act in view of Section 55( in question is taxable as capital gains u/s 45 of Act in view

SHIB NARAYAN KSHETTRY -HUF,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-38(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 55(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the long-term capital gain arising from the transfer of the property of the assessee

M/S. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

55,86,196/- and consequently computing the trading profit on shares at Rs. 11,05,41,076/-. However, the ld CITA did not appreciate the contentions of the assessee and upheld the treatment of the ld AO. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground:- “1. For that in view of the facts and circumstances

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LOKENATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

55,86,196/- and consequently computing the trading profit on shares at Rs. 11,05,41,076/-. However, the ld CITA did not appreciate the contentions of the assessee and upheld the treatment of the ld AO. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground:- “1. For that in view of the facts and circumstances

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

55,294/- only. On the other hand, on transfer of investment shares the appellant realized sale price of Rs.59,98 crores out of which capital appreciation accounted for Rs.31.32 crores. In other words, over 53% of the sale price realized on transfer of investment represented appellant's capital gains. On share holding by way of investment the appellant also earned

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

section 55(2)(a) of I T Act as amended by Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 for the purpose of capital gain

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

section 55(2)(a) of I T Act as amended by Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 for the purpose of capital gain