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

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

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

1: Profit on sale of investment in 34 nos Unlisted Preference Shares of ICICI Bank Ltd considered as business income instead of Long-Term Capital Gain Rs. 12,97,56,648/-: (a) For that the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, erred in law in holding that the assessment order under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 Queens Park, whose completion\ncertificate was received on 09.06.2022 i.e. within three years from\nthe date of long-term capital gain and therefore the entire capital\ngain earned from sale of shares was exempt u/s 54F of the Act. The\nAO during the course of assessment observed that, the assessee\nowned two immovable properties at 110, Southern Avenue

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 gain by taking the full value of the consideration to be the value as so revised in such appeal or revision I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. or reference; and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto, and the period of four years shall be reckoned from

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

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

Sections 12(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) & (e) of SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 is not established against the Notices no. 1 to 24.” It is submitted that the name of the assessees before the Hon’ble Tribunal -M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust

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

Sections 12(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) & (e) of SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 is not established against the Notices no. 1 to 24.” It is submitted that the name of the assessees before the Hon’ble Tribunal -M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust

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

Sections 12(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) & (e) of SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 is not established against the Notices no. 1 to 24.” It is submitted that the name of the assessees before the Hon’ble Tribunal -M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust

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

Sections 12(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) & (e) of SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 is not established against the Notices no. 1 to 24.” It is submitted that the name of the assessees before the Hon’ble Tribunal -M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust

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

Gains by invoking the provisions of section 50D of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹15,11,71,870/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3.1 Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who perused the assessment order, considered the submission of the assessee, the provisions

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

VENERABLE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT,KOL-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.459/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd....................…...……………....Appellant 6, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Jorbagan, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aaacv8673M] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-1, Kolkata…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Aayush Kedia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 14.03.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Vide Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2018-19 Declared Total Income Of Rs.1,09,24,210/- Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Carried Out U/S 143(3) Of The Act. However, Later On, The Ld. Pr. Cit In Exercising Of His Revision

capital gains etc. to which the assessee had given a detailed reply. Once I.T.A. No.459/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd a point wise reply was given by the assessee, then a duty was cast upon the Ld. Pr. CIT to examine the reply of the assessee and form a prima- facie opinion as to whether the order

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under