DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

56 of the Act, whereas for availing the exemption or 100% deduction under Section 80P of the Act the income is specified in clauses (a) to (f) of Subsection (2) of Section 80P of the Act should be its business or operational income. 13. What Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, which was though not specifically argued and canvassed

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

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

56(2)(x) of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the ld. PCIT is not justified in exercising the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act setting aside the assessment to the ld. Assessing Officer for fresh examination into these issues. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

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

gains as provided u/s 48(ii). The issue of cost in this case is governed by section 49(iii)(e) read with sec 47(vib). The cost of acquisition therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of the previous owner of the property. Since the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1.4.1981 the cost

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

gains as provided u/s 48(ii). The issue of cost in this case is governed by section 49(iii)(e) read with sec 47(vib). The cost of acquisition therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of the previous owner of the property. Since the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1.4.1981 the cost

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital receipt in his hands and is not exigible to income\ntax\"\n\nWe have also gone through the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of Rajkot\nin the case of Vineet Kumar Raghavji Bhai Bhalodia vs. ITO reported in [2011] 140\nTTJ 58 (Rajkot) wherein it has been held as under:\n\n\"The expression Hindu Undivided Family

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

2(19AA) r.w. Section 47(vi) of the Act. Since we have\nupheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings holding the scheme of demerger to be compliant with Section\n2(19AA) r.w. Section 47(vi) of the Act, we agree with the Ld. CIT(A) deleting this direction\nissued by the AO and dismiss these grounds as well.\n6.\nThis

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

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

56 taxman.com 163 (Karnataka HC).\n\"14. In my considered view, the contention of the Revenue to deny the benefit\nof deduction to the petitioner/assessee cannot be justified for the following\nreasons: Section 54(2) cannot be read in isolation and on the other hand,\napplication of Section 54(2) should take place only when the assessee failed\nto satisfy

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

2 Russel Credit Ltd. : AY: 2018-19 29.03.2019 at an income of Rs. 36,18,36,450/-. Thereafter, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 08.03.2021 at an income of Rs. 39,76,74,478/-. Following this assessment order, a notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued on 30.11.2022 and thereafter an order under this section

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 56(2)(vii)(b)\ne) Dy. CIT-5(3)(1) vs. Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy ITA No. 3204 &\n3316/M/2016 dtd. 30/07/2018(Mum.) (Trib.) In order to determine\ntaxability of capital gain

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

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

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

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

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

2)(a) of the Act and set aside the matter to the ld.AO. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and the Hon’ble jurisdictional Court directed the matter for further consideration to ITAT and set aside the issue before the Bench which is currently the matter of adjudication. Related

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

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

2)(a) of the Act and set aside the matter to the ld.AO. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and the Hon’ble jurisdictional Court directed the matter for further consideration to ITAT and set aside the issue before the Bench which is currently the matter of adjudication. Related

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

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

2)(a) of the Act and set aside the matter to the ld.AO. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and the Hon’ble jurisdictional Court directed the matter for further consideration to ITAT and set aside the issue before the Bench which is currently the matter of adjudication. Related