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

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

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act will not be applicable upon the purchasers. 6. On the other hand, ld. D/R relied upon the orders of lower authorities. 7. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the records carefully. The assessee has put reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case

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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

AMAL MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR. , DURGAPUR.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

2)(vii) have a direct relation with the provision of section 43CA and 50C of the Act. These two sections come into play for the purpose of calculation of capital gains when the asset is sold or transferred by the assessee. Corollary to the same, section 56

GOUTAM GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 13, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

56(2)(x) did not arise at all. 6. FOR THAT even otherwise the order of PCIT is bad in law as it travelled beyond the Show Cause Notice initially issued u/s 263. 7. FOR THAT when the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi completed the assessment, as per the law as laid down in the statute and rightly followed

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Division Bench observed thus: "3. Regarding question No. (i): ** ** ** (f) It is self evident from reading of section 50C of the Act it would not have any application while determining 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. This is so as its application is only limited to computation of income chargeable

HIRAK SARKAR,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR. 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: The Ld Cit(Appeals) As His Mother Was Not Well Because Of Prolonged Disease Was Going Under Medical Supervision And

capital gains made by the Ld Assessing Officer is incorrect and the same be made as per law. 6. For that in the facts and circumstance of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding and confirming the addition of Rs.43,61,031 as addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Division Bench observed thus: "3. Regarding question No. (i): ** ** ** (f) It is self evident from reading of section 50C of the Act it would not have any application while determining 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. This is so as its application is only limited to computation of income chargeable

SUBODH ADHIKARY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 51(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain of Rs. 2,26,77,110/- in Ground No. 3, Rs. 1,10,12,228/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, in Ground No. 4 and Rs. 2,84,88,545/-, in Ground No. 5 and 6 in respect of unexplained investment are concerned, the same were without jurisdiction as the AO has no authority

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

vii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, failed to acknowledge para 6.2 of the said instruction, wherein the extended reassessment notice for the A.Y.2016-17 was to be dealt as under :- Fresh notice u/s. 148 can be issued with approval of the specified authority under clause (a) of sub-section

LALIT KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 33,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

capital gain cost has been taken as Rs. 19,62,885/-. It has further been submitted that aforesaid property was purchased during FY 2011-12 and Section 56(2)(vii

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

56(2)(VII) 3. For that the appellant reserves his right to add to, to alter, to amend the grounds and to adduce paper and document at the time of hearing.” I.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta Ground No.1 – The brief facts of the case are that the assessee 3. during the year transferred her long-term investment

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

56,540 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034548 989 2 Q2 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,69,015 32,198 3,01,210 3,01,210 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 022 3 Q3 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 5,04,193 42,796 5.46.990 2,52,590 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 058 4 Q4 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2