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

capital gains tax as per law. For attracting application of Section 194-IC, it\n10\nITA No. 1457/Kol/2024\nEmami Realty Ltd.; A.Y. 2021-22\nis necessary is to show that the payment being made by the appellant is pursuant to an\nagreement i.e. a 'specified agreement' which comes within the ambit of Section 45(5A) of\nthe Act. Only those

DCIT CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

2)A x B = 2429451 x 251263510 = Rs.1764646/- C 345923332 3) ½% of average value of investment Rs.251263510/- comes to Rs.12,56,318/- Therefore total amount [1+2+3] [351494/- + 1764646/- + 12,56,318/-] inadmissible u/s 14A read with Rule 8D comes to Rs.33,72,458/-.” 23. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed the order

KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

2)A x B = 2429451 x 251263510 = Rs.1764646/- C 345923332 3) ½% of average value of investment Rs.251263510/- comes to Rs.12,56,318/- Therefore total amount [1+2+3] [351494/- + 1764646/- + 12,56,318/-] inadmissible u/s 14A read with Rule 8D comes to Rs.33,72,458/-.” 23. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed the order

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain arising from sale of property, it is date of\nallotment of property which is relevant for purpose of computing holding\nperiod and not date of registration of conveyance deed\nf) Mohd. Ilyas Ansari v. ITO-23(2)(3), Mumbai [ITA No. 6174/M/2017dtd.\n06/11/2020, 186 ITD 407 (Mumbai - Trib.)] Where Assessing Officer\nmechanically applied provisions of section 56(2

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

x 10.24) Rs. 1,43,36,000/- Difference (indexed cost excess taken) Rs. 49,94,662/- 4.1 On the basis of above calculation, difference of long term capital gain is calculated here as under: Sl. Particulars Amount No. 1 Full value of consideration Less Allowed Rs. 3,55,72,600 Brokerage (-) 2,37,500 Rs. 3,53,35,100 2

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

x as the capital gains in the hands of the assessee. 5 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Shikha Roy 28. Further, simultaneously with the aforesaid transfer the right of the assessee in 28. Further, simultaneously with the aforesaid transfer the right of the assessee in 28. Further, simultaneously with the aforesaid transfer the right of the assessee in the monthly

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

x 852/519] Long Term Capital gains 88,98,508 However, again in 2012 the appellant revalued the land from Rs. 8,50,00,000/- to Rs. 90,00,00,000/-. Timing of revelation is again important as just from FY 2012-13, appellant started earning capital gains from the said Joint Development Agreement. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted

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

x 852/519] Long Term Capital gains 88,98,508 However, again in 2012 the appellant revalued the land from Rs. 8,50,00,000/- to Rs. 90,00,00,000/-. Timing of revelation is again important as just from FY 2012-13, appellant started earning capital gains from the said Joint Development Agreement. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted

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”).

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56;] Following sub-clause (xviib) shall be inserted after sub-clause (xviia) of clause (24) of section 2 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019 : (xviib) any compensation or other payment referred to in clause (xi) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy

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)

x) Such germ of planning was adopted for avoiding taxes on 'Capital Gains' accrued to the assessee, as well as to the other two partner companies who have contributed land in the aforesaid Partnership Firm, either for the year ended on 31.03.2006 or for the year ended on 31.03.2008. xi) The assessee's contention that revaluation of asset was done

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)

x) Such germ of planning was adopted for avoiding taxes on 'Capital Gains' accrued to the assessee, as well as to the other two partner companies who have contributed land in the aforesaid Partnership Firm, either for the year ended on 31.03.2006 or for the year ended on 31.03.2008. xi) The assessee's contention that revaluation of asset was done

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

56(2)(x) of the Act cannot be made for the previous year relevant to assessment year 2018-19 as the purchase/sale/transfer of the said rice mill took place in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2017- 18 and not in the assessment year 2018-19 ? b. Whether Ld. ITAT erred in law in not appreciating that

TAMAL KUNDU,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 37, , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 1797/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

56(2)(x) of the Act, that could have been made by the AO into the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 and not in the A.Y. 2018-19. 7. We have considered the above submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and gone through the documents and the copy of the agreement which has been placed

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)

x) Such germ of planning was adopted for avoiding taxes on 'Capital Gains' accrued to the assessee, as well as to the other two partner companies who have contributed land in the aforesaid Partnership Firm, either for the year ended on 31.03.2006 or for the year ended on 31.03.2008. xi) The assessee's contention that revaluation of asset was done

SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

56(1)……. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under any of the head “Income from other sources”, namely- (i) ……. (ii) …… ……….. (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

RENU BOTHRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 46,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

56(1)……. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under any of the head “Income from other sources”, namely- (i) ……. (ii) …… ……….. (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

X, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99 respectively. 2. These bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and revenue pertain to the issues of the same assessee for the different assessment year, therefore for the sake of convenience, we heard all these

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

X, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99 respectively. 2. These bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and revenue pertain to the issues of the same assessee for the different assessment year, therefore for the sake of convenience, we heard all these