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

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

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

Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – capital gains – reference to Valuation Officer (General) – Assessment year 1996-97 – whether

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 Gain x cost of new house Net Consideration = 2,15,90,819+1,16,57,762 10,46,60,259 Rs. 24,04,928/- 5. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) raising the following grounds: “i. That the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing

ITO, WD-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PIONEER IRON & STEEL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.203/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward-3(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Pioneer Iron & Steel Corporation (P) Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 4Th Floor, 6, Tarachand Ganguly Street, Howrah – Chowringhee Sq., Kolkata – 700 069. 711202. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcp 6093 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital gain and that was the reason why he inflated the fair market value on 1st April, 1981. The reference made by the Assessing Officer was competent. The Learned Tribunal was correct in holding that the clause (b)(ii) to section 55A

ALOKE RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(INTT.TAXATION), CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55A to refer valuation of a capital asset to a 2 Aloke Ray A.Y. 2015-16 Valuation Officer is a discretionary power and cannot be influenced, and that too, based only on a report of the Valuation Officer. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT should have appreciated that the report of a Valuation Officer

ITO, WD-30(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TOLARAM AND SONS (HUF), KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is party allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 974/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward-30(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Tolaram & Sons (Huf) [Pan: Aaaht 7363 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain on transfer of land at Rs. 51,68,344/- as against Rs. 1,65,222/- reported by the assessee. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that Section 55A

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

capital asset to DVO in ac- cordance with section 55A. Further, in S Muthuraja vs CIT (2013) 37 Таx- mann.com 35a (Mad HC), Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that where the assessee objects to the adoption of stamp duty valuation as deemed sale consid- eration during the assessment proceedings, the AD is duty-bound to make

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

capital asset to DVO in ac- cordance with section 55A. Further, in S Muthuraja vs CIT (2013) 37 Таx- mann.com 35a (Mad HC), Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that where the assessee objects to the adoption of stamp duty valuation as deemed sale consid- eration during the assessment proceedings, the AD is duty-bound to make

SWAMI SATYANANDA ,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD - 50(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1614/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Swami Satyananda Vs. Ito, Ward-50(3), Kolkata

capital gain. However, the AO rejected the contention of the assessee and held that since the reference was made u/s 55A of the Act and whereupon report of DVO is binding upon the AO in terms of same reference made u/s 55A read with Section

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE DIAMOND COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section, we find that said Act does not make any distinction between the income under the head “capital gain” on which STT was paid or STT was not paid. We further find that loss under the same head then set off from one source to another source is allowed if it is computed under the similar computation made

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

55A can be made for a limited purpose as prescribed under section 50C. {emphasis supplied}. 6.2. It is seen from records and the Paper Books filed in the present case, the Assessing Officer referred the transaction to the Valuation Officer, Sholapur under section 142A on 09.11.2017 to ascertain the Fair Market Value as on the date of sale. The Valuation

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 55A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – reference to Valuation Officer (Condition precedent) –Whether formation of opinion

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 55A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – reference to Valuation Officer (Condition precedent) –Whether formation of opinion

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 55A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – reference to Valuation Officer (Condition precedent) –Whether formation of opinion

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 55A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – reference to Valuation Officer (Condition precedent) –Whether formation of opinion

SONALI ROY,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Sonali Roy V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of V-5, Block-B, Meena Income Tax-17, Residency, Baguihati, Maniktala, Uttarapan Kolkata-59 Complex, Civic Centre, [Pan No.Afppr 4436 P] Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 10-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-17, Kolkata Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2015 U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. That The Findings Of Ld. Pr. Clt Kolkata-17 That Assessing Officer First Recorded His Decision Of Referring The Matter To Ova In The Order Sheet & Then Passing Of Order U/S 143(3) Was Recorded Do Not Support The Languages Used In Section 55A Of It Act, 1961 Which Speaks For Actual Reference To Dvo But Not "Decision" To Make Reference. 2. That The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kolkata-17 Having Admitted That Reference To Dvo & Passing Of Order U/S 143(3) Had Been Done On The Same Day Is Wrong & Unjustified In Drawing Conclusion That The Decision For Referring To Dvo Was Taken Before Passing Order U/S 143(3) Without Any Other Supporting Evidence.

capital gains”. The instant matter was referred to the DVO against the provision of Section 55A of the Act as the matter

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

55A r.w.s. 142A of the Act before finally computing the capital gains/loss in the hands of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has illogically upheld such unlawful action of the AO on the sole allegation that the valuer visited the property after the assessee sold the same. 4. That, without any prejudice to the above

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI, SANAT KUMAR LAHA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Sh. A.L.Sainiacit, Vs Shri Sanat Kumar Laha, Circle-33, 10B, Middleton 8, Pretoria Street, Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700071. Kolkata-700071. Pan-Adzpl4383P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. C.J.Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. S.P.Datta, Adv. Date Of Hearing 15.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2019

capital gain at Rs.5,55,44,790/- as against Rs.2,69,22,357/-. 3. The CIT(A) deleted the said amount by holding the AO ought not to have invoked the provision u/s 55A(a) of the Act as it came into effect from 01.07.2012 taking into effect the assessment year under consideration is being 2012-13 FY being