RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

section was passed on 27.02.2023, setting aside the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 08.03.2021 on the following grounds: (a) Treatment of gain from transfer of 34 unquoted preference shares of ICICI Bank Ltd as long-term capital gain (hereafter ‘LTCG’) of Rs. 12,97,56

SWETA SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

56 taxmann.com 209 ( Mad) dated 16.12.2024 (Madras High Court) ii) Saurabh Prasannavadan Vakil vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4) (Now DCIT 1(1)(1), Vadodara in ITA NO. 975/Ahd/2024 dated of order 15.10.2024 (Ahmedabad ITAT). 3 I.T.A. No. 207/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sweta Sonthalia iii) CIT vs. Smt. Neena Krishna Menon [2021] 123 taxmann.com 205 (Karnataka) dated of order

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

56 (Cal) (2022), Page 20 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust dealing with issue of claim of bogus capital gain on penny stock, holding the judgment in favour of Revenue. It is pertinent to mention that

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

56 (Cal) (2022), Page 20 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust dealing with issue of claim of bogus capital gain on penny stock, holding the judgment in favour of Revenue. It is pertinent to mention that

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

56 (Cal) (2022), Page 20 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust dealing with issue of claim of bogus capital gain on penny stock, holding the judgment in favour of Revenue. It is pertinent to mention that

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

56 (Cal) (2022), Page 20 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust dealing with issue of claim of bogus capital gain on penny stock, holding the judgment in favour of Revenue. It is pertinent to mention that

MADHUR COAL MINING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains u/s 50D of the Act and assessed the total income at ₹16,61,52,180/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 27.06.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA No.: 1784/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Madhur Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved with the order

GAURAV VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and further, added a sum of ₹2,03,68,000/- as Short term Capital Gains

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

capital gains account scheme before the due date\nprescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act?\nThe Hon'ble Court has held that If the intention is not to retain cash but to\ninvest in construction or any purchase of the property and if such investment\nis made within the period stipulated in section 54F(1), then section

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains was not directly\nutilized for construction. The Ld.AR took us through the provisions\nof Section 54F of the Act and submitted that, Section 54F does not\npostulate that the construction has to begin on a particular date.\nAccording to Ld. AR, the only condition to be satisfied to avail the\nexemption is that, construction of house must be completed

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

capital asset to a Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and for that purpose, the procedure prescribed under he Wealth Tax Act are to be applied. In case of any such claim, the AO may rely on the report of the registered valuer under Section 55-A of the Act and in such case it will not be necessary

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

section 48 of the "Act". Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly accepted the assessee's contention and deleted the addition made by the Assessing officer. Hence, qua this ground, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). 7. Subsequently this judgment and certain other judgments have also been considered by the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in ITA No. 6620/DEL/2019, order

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

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

gain under section 55 of the Act. Being aggrieved, both the parties have filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld.AR filed written submissions (in short APB) which are kept in the record. The ld.AR vehemently argued and placed that the issue is arising out of two agreements between the appellant and the Government of Iraq in 1980s

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

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

gain under section 55 of the Act. Being aggrieved, both the parties have filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld.AR filed written submissions (in short APB) which are kept in the record. The ld.AR vehemently argued and placed that the issue is arising out of two agreements between the appellant and the Government of Iraq in 1980s

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

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

gain under section 55 of the Act. Being aggrieved, both the parties have filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld.AR filed written submissions (in short APB) which are kept in the record. The ld.AR vehemently argued and placed that the issue is arising out of two agreements between the appellant and the Government of Iraq in 1980s

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

capital gain Rs.1,56,77,990/-, but the actual sale consideration is Rs.1,38,87,440/-, as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. (3) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A] was wrong in not justified in making additions of Rs.17

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

56 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka). The operative part is reproduced as under: “4.1 Re.QuestionNo.2 : "As is clear from Sub-section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains

GUJARAT COMPOSITE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2007-08

56,531/- 4 Gujarat Composite Ltd., AYs: 2007-08 only and Net Capital Gain should had been at Rs.9,49,835/- on the basis of his own calculation. All these prove that the Assessment was completed hurriedly without application of mind and going through all the relevant records in the possession of the A.O.” 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment