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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain earned by the assessee on sale of property. 9. We after going through the submission made by the parties and material available on record. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Monoj Kumar Biswas vs Pr. CIT-9, Kolkata held as under

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

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

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

vii) Shri Farid Gulmohammed vs. ITO (ITA No. 5136/Mum/2014) (ITAT Mum) (viii) ITO vs Yasin Moosa Godil (20 taxmann.com 424) (ITAT Ahmedabad) (ix) ACIT vs. Nadir Nazarali Dhanani (ITA No. 100/Mum/2013) (ITAT Mum); (x) Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No. 7231/Mum/2010) (ITAT Mum); (xi) ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta (45 ITR 137); (xii) ITO -vs.- Pradeep Steel Re-rolling

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:

56,751/- Depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act 4,06,46,462/- Total 6,82,03,213/- 10% proportionate disallowance thereon 68,20,321/- This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 4.1 On facts and circumstances of the case

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:

56,751/- Depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act 4,06,46,462/- Total 6,82,03,213/- 10% proportionate disallowance thereon 68,20,321/- This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 4.1 On facts and circumstances of the case

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

56,760/- revised computation) 1,64,80,407/- Less: Registration Expenses (As per Assessee’s 75,000/- computation) Long Term Capital Gains 1,64,05,407/- Less: Deduction u/s. 54EC (as discussed above) 50,00,000/- Total: 1,14,05,407/- 9. Therefore, the AO computed the total Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.1,14,05,407/- instead of Rs.69

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

56,760/- revised computation) 1,64,80,407/- Less: Registration Expenses (As per Assessee’s 75,000/- computation) Long Term Capital Gains 1,64,05,407/- Less: Deduction u/s. 54EC (as discussed above) 50,00,000/- Total: 1,14,05,407/- 9. Therefore, the AO computed the total Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.1,14,05,407/- instead of Rs.69

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

56,49,228/- only to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed objections before the ld DRP who upheld the order of TPO. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. DRP and the final order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR contended that the impugned issue has been

SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar -Versus- D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1) Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Aftpp 2386 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Counsel, Sri Ronak G.Doshi & Shri A.K.Gupta, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Special Counsel & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-2, Kolkata Dated 10.07..2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘ Act’ ) Dated 30.12.2016 Was Confirmed.

capital gains’ specifically with reference to section 55(2)(a) of the Act. 23. The learned Sr. Counsel Shri J.D.Mistry submitted that as the learned Special Counsel has stated that the stand of the AO as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is basically wrong , as the receipt in question cannot be brought to tax u/s 56(2)(vii

ACIT(E), CIR -1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL TRANSPORT WORKERS SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviacit(E), Vs West Bengal Transport Workers Circle-1, 5Th Floor, Social Security Scheme, 10B, Middleton Row, 6, Church Lane, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-700071. Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaalw0133G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh.S.M.Surana, Advocate Date Of Hearing 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.04.2016 Passed By Cit(A)-25, Kolkata For Ay 2011-12 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”).

vii) or clause (viia) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xvi) any consideration received for issue of shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares referred to in clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xvii) any sum of money referred to in clause (ix) of sub- section (2) of section 56; 8[(xviia

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

GAUTAM BHAKAT ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 23(2), HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Gautam Bhakat Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 4(3), Bengal Coal Lane, Ward-23(2), Aayakar V/S. Sheoraphuli, Bhawan, Khadina Hooghly-712223 More, G.T. Road, [Pan No.Ahqpb 1821R] Hooghly-712101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dilip Kumar Mitra, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-09-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed In Case No.Cita-6, Kolkat-6/10144/16-17 Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Us 50(2)(Vii) Addition Of ₹6,62,962/- In Assessment Order Dated 18.08.2016 Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. I Notice At The Outset That The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Qua The Above Sole Issue Reads As Follows:- “3. The Appellant Submitted Written Submission, Which Is Reproduced As Under:- ‘Only Ground Of Appeal Is Against Addition Made By The Learned Ao Of Rs.6,60,962.00 U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Act. Registration Set Forth Share Of Market Share Of Difference No. & Date Value (Value Your Value Your As Per Assessee Assessee Conveyance Deeds) 00369/2014 5,00,000/- 1,00,00 15,28,586/- 3,05,717/- 2,05,717/- (1/5Th) (1/5Th) 18.1.2014 00400/2014 5,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 15,28,586/- 3,05,717/- 2,05,717/- (1/5Th) (1/5Th) 18.1.2014

56(2)(vii) of the Act. Here I would like to rely on the following judgments wherein legal validity of stamp duty value has been ruled out and considered to be irrelevant for the purpose of determining taxable income. 1. CIT v. Chandani Bhochar (2010) 323 ITR 519 (P&H) full value of consideration. Assessee disclosed the purchase price

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 3 M/s Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 3.1. The State Government guideline value for the purpose of registration and stamp duty in respect of the said land was Rs.260/- per sq. ft. whereas the purchase price paid by the said three companies was Rs.70l/- per sq. ft. i.e. more two and half times the stamp value

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 3 M/s Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 3.1. The State Government guideline value for the purpose of registration and stamp duty in respect of the said land was Rs.260/- per sq. ft. whereas the purchase price paid by the said three companies was Rs.70l/- per sq. ft. i.e. more two and half times the stamp

RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

VII of the Finance Act, 2013; (ii) “eligible transaction” means any transaction, Act, 2013; (ii) “eligible transaction” means any transaction, Act, 2013; (ii) “eligible transaction” means any transaction,- (A)carried out electronically on screen (A)carried out electronically on screen-based systems through based systems through member or an intermediary, registered under the bye member or an intermediary, registered under

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 M/s Command Construction Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2006-07 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is a company and for the Asst Year 2006-07 had filed its return of income on 6.11.2006 declaring total loss of Rs 39,971/-. The assessee along with M/s Orchid Griha Nirman Private Limited, M/s Blue Heaven Griha Nirman