RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

Section 48 of the Act and that the cost of acquisition of assets which is Rs.2,70,69,200/ of assets which is Rs.2,70,69,200/-, has to be reduced from the full value of , has to be reduced from the full value of consideration received and if done so, the capital gain

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 to the extent of ₹89,11,086/- as per computation of income submitted, out of which a sum of ₹88,98,508/- was reported to have been against the sale of land. On examination of Schedule 6 of the Audited Balance Sheet as submitted, it was found that there was deduction of gross block

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 to the extent of ₹89,11,086/- as per computation of income submitted, out of which a sum of ₹88,98,508/- was reported to have been against the sale of land. On examination of Schedule 6 of the Audited Balance Sheet as submitted, it was found that there was deduction of gross block

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

section 50 of the Act. The cost of acquisition the building in question is no longer relevant due to the resolution of the dispute on capital gains mentioned above.” 07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is a AOP and running a hospital till 1984 when it is stopped

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 is exempt from tax. According to Ld. AR there is nothing provided in Section 10(38) or for that matter Section 45 to 48 to state that long term capital loss on sale of shares are to be ignored as section 10(38) exempts the income arising from the transfer of long term capital M/s. United Investments

SURAJ KHANDELWAL,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

69,341/- 2,04,99,126/- iii) Long Term Capital Gains NIL Net Long Term Capital Gain on listed securities exempted u/s. 10(38) 18,95,942/- 1,68,320/- iv) Income from other sources … 1,85,35,810/- Gross Total Income 1,85,35,810/- Less : Short Term Capital Loss brought forward adjusted NIL Deduction under Chapter-VIA allowable

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT YAMINI KHANDELWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

69,341/- 2,04,99,126/- iii) Long Term Capital Gains NIL Net Long Term Capital Gain on listed securities exempted u/s. 10(38) 18,95,942/- 1,68,320/- iv) Income from other sources … 1,85,35,810/- Gross Total Income 1,85,35,810/- Less : Short Term Capital Loss brought forward adjusted NIL Deduction under Chapter-VIA allowable

YAMINI KHANDEL WAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

69,341/- 2,04,99,126/- iii) Long Term Capital Gains NIL Net Long Term Capital Gain on listed securities exempted u/s. 10(38) 18,95,942/- 1,68,320/- iv) Income from other sources … 1,85,35,810/- Gross Total Income 1,85,35,810/- Less : Short Term Capital Loss brought forward adjusted NIL Deduction under Chapter-VIA allowable

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SURAJ KHANDEL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

69,341/- 2,04,99,126/- iii) Long Term Capital Gains NIL Net Long Term Capital Gain on listed securities exempted u/s. 10(38) 18,95,942/- 1,68,320/- iv) Income from other sources … 1,85,35,810/- Gross Total Income 1,85,35,810/- Less : Short Term Capital Loss brought forward adjusted NIL Deduction under Chapter-VIA allowable

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]

Capital Gain 69,10,115/- 7. According to AO, it is evident from the revised computation filed during the course of hearing that the assessee has accepted the inadmissibility of the claim of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of Section

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]

Capital Gain 69,10,115/- 7. According to AO, it is evident from the revised computation filed during the course of hearing that the assessee has accepted the inadmissibility of the claim of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of Section

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

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

gain in the year of sale. Based on the above discussion it can be 15 I.T.A. No. 1925 to 1929/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2010-11 Vikash SolvextractsPvt. Ltd. safely concluded that the assessee has not converted the land into stock in trade and the department has not adduced any evidence to prove that the land has converted into

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

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

gain in the year of sale. Based on the above discussion it can be 15 I.T.A. No. 1925 to 1929/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2010-11 Vikash SolvextractsPvt. Ltd. safely concluded that the assessee has not converted the land into stock in trade and the department has not adduced any evidence to prove that the land has converted into

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

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

gain in the year of sale. Based on the above discussion it can be 15 I.T.A. No. 1925 to 1929/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2010-11 Vikash SolvextractsPvt. Ltd. safely concluded that the assessee has not converted the land into stock in trade and the department has not adduced any evidence to prove that the land has converted into

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

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

gain in the year of sale. Based on the above discussion it can be 15 I.T.A. No. 1925 to 1929/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2010-11 Vikash SolvextractsPvt. Ltd. safely concluded that the assessee has not converted the land into stock in trade and the department has not adduced any evidence to prove that the land has converted into

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

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

gain in the year of sale. Based on the above discussion it can be 15 I.T.A. No. 1925 to 1929/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2010-11 Vikash SolvextractsPvt. Ltd. safely concluded that the assessee has not converted the land into stock in trade and the department has not adduced any evidence to prove that the land has converted into

SMT.BARNALI DHAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Barnali Dhar Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata C/O. S.D. Verma, Advocate, 2Nd Floor, 7, Vs. Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Pan: Ajppd 6989 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 10, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 10 Was Not Justified In Not Deleting A Sum Of Rs. 9933057/- Being The Amount Wrongly Included By The Appellant Under The Head Capital Gain, While Filing Return Of Income Whereas As Per Section 54F No Amount Is Liable To Be Taxed. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Or Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal At Hearing Stage.”

69,440/-. The gross capital gain accordingly worked out to Rs.2,15,90, 819/-. From the facts on record it is noted that the aforesaid computation of gross capital gain of Rs.2,15,90, 819/- is neither disputed by the Ld. AO or the appellant. Against the gross Long Term Capital Gain, the appellant had claimed deduction of Rs.1

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

69,267/-. Later the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO after issuing the statutory notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and after hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has passed the 143(3) order on 02.01.2014 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) and 144C(13) of the Act, determining the total assessed income (long