SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law in interpreting the provisions of section 263 which says ‘commissioner may call for and examined the records of the proceeding if he consider any order passed there in, by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest if revenue’ whereas in present case the AO had already

RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

gain on sale of shares/securities is uniformly laid down in Section 48 of the Act. The Ld. A.R argued that where the resultant figure is long term capital loss, the manner for claiming its set off / carry forward has been set out in Section 70, 71(3) and 74 of the Act. The Ld. A.R submitted that conjoint reading

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

3,61,35,000/- for land + ₹49,65,000/- for structure (building) and he assessee determined the Long Term Capital Loss at ₹12,35,377/- as under:- “Long Term Capital Gain/ (Loss) 1. Sale consideration ₹4,11,00,000/- Fair Market Value ₹9,03,42,619/ (u/s 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act)) Less: Indexed Cost

RAM NIRANJAN BANKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

section 54 (1) (ii) 1,10,74,204 Short Term Capital Gain as per AO 4,19,61,865 Ram Niranjan Banka; A.Y. 2014-15 3.7. Total Long Term Capital Gains as per the assessee was computed at Rs. 7,70,25,588 as under:- From Transfer of Developer’s allocation 4,65,63,334 From Transfer of 1st Floor

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

section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous, since 3 Russel Credit Ltd. : AY: 2018-19 the Appellant Company has relied upon the CBDT instruction no. F.NO.225/12/2016/ITA.II dated 2nd May 2016 in its submission and the Assessing Officer (AO) had followed the said CBDT instruction while allowing the profit on sale of Unlisted Preference Shares of ICICI Bank

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]

Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Not to be charged on investment in certain bonds (Limitation period for investment) - Whether where assessee company invested long term capital 4 I.T.A. No. 207/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sweta Sonthalia gain in REC bonds in two different financial years but within six months from date of transfer of capital

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

3 to Rs. 55 in a short span of time. Mere payment by cheque and receipt by cheque does not. Render a transaction genuine. Capital gain tax was created to operate in a real world and not that of make belief. Facts of the case only lead to the inference that these transactions are not genuine and make believe only

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

3 to Rs. 55 in a short span of time. Mere payment by cheque and receipt by cheque does not. Render a transaction genuine. Capital gain tax was created to operate in a real world and not that of make belief. Facts of the case only lead to the inference that these transactions are not genuine and make believe only

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

3 to Rs. 55 in a short span of time. Mere payment by cheque and receipt by cheque does not. Render a transaction genuine. Capital gain tax was created to operate in a real world and not that of make belief. Facts of the case only lead to the inference that these transactions are not genuine and make believe only

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

3 to Rs. 55 in a short span of time. Mere payment by cheque and receipt by cheque does not. Render a transaction genuine. Capital gain tax was created to operate in a real world and not that of make belief. Facts of the case only lead to the inference that these transactions are not genuine and make believe only

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6,25,00,000/- from\nwhich the assessee earned the long-term capital gain of\n5,48,40,817/-. The assessee applied the capital gain to the extent of\n5,46,52,500/- on payment of purchase of land, architect fee and\ndeposit in capital gain account scheme as detailed above. The assessee\nwas granted provisional allotment of land

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

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

section 54F of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 and had claimed before the Hon'ble CIT(A) in writing during the first\nappellate proceedings that his taxable capital gains was for Rs.44,63,518 only.\nSale proceeds of 3.55 Acres of land\nRs.4,17,00,000/-\nLess: Cost of acquisition of 2.81\nAcres of land in the hand

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains from transfer of any long-term capital not\nbeing a residential house could claim benefit under the said Section provided, any one of\nthe following three conditions were satisfied; (i) the assessee had within a period of one\nyear before the sale, purchased a residential house; (ii) within two years after the date of\ntransfer of the original capital

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

section 10(38) of I.T. Act 1961 for long term capital gain of Rs. 68,87,029/- earned by your appellant on sale of 26000 shares of NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. (3) Ld. Income Tax Officer has erred in law as well in fact in denying conclusion on transaction of so called penny stocks without providing to your appellant

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

section 10(38) of I.T. Act 1961 for long term capital gain of Rs. 68,87,029/- earned by your appellant on sale of 26000 shares of NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. (3) Ld. Income Tax Officer has erred in law as well in fact in denying conclusion on transaction of so called penny stocks without providing to your appellant

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

Capital Gain (LTCG") on sale of both land and build- ing without appreciating that the building formed part of block of assets and hence as per provisions of Section 43(6) only 'moneys payable" in respect of such building was required to be reduced from the relevant block of assets. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

Capital Gain (LTCG") on sale of both land and build- ing without appreciating that the building formed part of block of assets and hence as per provisions of Section 43(6) only 'moneys payable" in respect of such building was required to be reduced from the relevant block of assets. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Capital Gains 9,91,00,694/- 3 Bani Broto Banerjee 5. Dissatisfied with this working, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has accepted the contention of the assessee with regard to admissibility of expenditure incurred for furniture and fixtures. The finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this aspect