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

74,19,522 Deduct: Proportionate cost of construction (difference due to area set apart for Original Lessor) 1,72,43,164 1,68,17,757 Capital Gains 3,04,62,254 3,08,87,661 Add; Proportionate Capital Gains reduced from cost as per section

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

capital gain as per the provisions of section 74(1)(b), it appears that the impugned Instruction of CBDT does

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain account scheme as detailed above. The assessee\nwas granted provisional allotment of land as per agreement with\nUrbana on 01.09.2015, to whom ₹2,80,70,000/- was paid. We also\nnote that the assessee started the construction of the house on the\nsaid land. However, the construction could not be completed within\nthree years upto 15.06.2018, since

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

74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust that Sri Bal Kishan Sikaria was referred by him to the client for availing the benefit of long term capital gain. ii) Ld. AO observed that SEBI vide Order dated

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

74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust that Sri Bal Kishan Sikaria was referred by him to the client for availing the benefit of long term capital gain. ii) Ld. AO observed that SEBI vide Order dated

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

74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust that Sri Bal Kishan Sikaria was referred by him to the client for availing the benefit of long term capital gain. ii) Ld. AO observed that SEBI vide Order dated

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

74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust that Sri Bal Kishan Sikaria was referred by him to the client for availing the benefit of long term capital gain. ii) Ld. AO observed that SEBI vide Order dated

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains was not directly\nutilized for construction. The Ld.AR took us through the provisions\nof Section 54F of the Act and submitted that, Section 54F does not\npostulate that the construction has to begin on a particular date.\nAccording to Ld. AR, the only condition to be satisfied to avail the\nexemption is that, construction of house must be completed

GUJARAT COMPOSITE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2007-08

74,161 by adding Rs.6,07,611/- with Rs.1,98,48,920/- apparently which should had been Rs.2,04,56,531/- 4 Gujarat Composite Ltd., AYs: 2007-08 only and Net Capital Gain should had been at Rs.9,49,835/- on the basis of his own calculation. All these prove that the Assessment was completed hurriedly without application of mind

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

gain it was observed that the assessee has paid taxes treating it to be long term capital asset and paid concessional tax rate as provided u/s 112 of the Act. Income assessed at Rs.519,61,39,830/-. 5.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 6. Aggrieved revenue is now in appeal before this

VENERABLE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT,KOL-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.459/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd....................…...……………....Appellant 6, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Jorbagan, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aaacv8673M] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-1, Kolkata…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Aayush Kedia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 14.03.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Vide Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2018-19 Declared Total Income Of Rs.1,09,24,210/- Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Carried Out U/S 143(3) Of The Act. However, Later On, The Ld. Pr. Cit In Exercising Of His Revision

74,60,38,465) on the sale of JM Financial Mutual Fund in view of the provisions of section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Besides this, the assessee earned a short-term capital gain

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

gains, as the assessee was enjoying the property for more than 36 months. 15. In the case of CIT v. Ved Prakash Rakhra [2012] 26 taxmann.com 166/210 Taxman 605 (Kar.), the Court took note of the decision in the case of V.V. Mody (supra) and after noting that the said decision refers to the insertion of sub-Clause

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain u/s. 50C of the Act of Rs.5,29,39,153/- by holding that leasehold right on land are not within the purview of section 50C. 2 A. R. Suphonates Pvt Ltd. AY 2017-18 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in manufacturing of sulphonates having its manufacturing unit at Thane, Maharastra. For expansion

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

74,94,805/- u/s 56(2)(x) without applying his mind in the case in hand and such order of the Ld. PCIT is beyond his jurisdiction and liable to be struck down in appeal. 3. FOR THAT merely because the PCIT is of a different opinion, it would not justify action u/s 263 of the Act. 4. FOR THAT

ANAND KUMAR PADIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-5(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

74,434/-. It is pertinent to note that the assessee purchased 2,500 equity shares of M/s. Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. on 25.02.2011 at Rs. 218.10 per share. Ld. CIT(A) also in the appellate proceedings dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has raised the legal issue before us challenging the validity of assessment

JAGANNATH DATTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-24(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

74, Sarat Chatterjee Road, Vs. 24(1), Kolkata. Kolkata-700089. (PAN: ADRPD2995B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Vigyaneshwar Nath Datta, Advocate Respondent by : Shri L. N. Dash, JCIT Date of Hearing : 30.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A. In view of the above, the Ld. CIT(A) had no reasons to interfere with the observations of the Ld. AO and he dismissed the grounds of appeal of the assessee in this regard. The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the ground of 7 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 appeal

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MEENAKSHI MERCANTILES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-11(1), Meenakshi Mercantiles Limited Kolkata Room No 504, Woodburn Aayakar Bhawan, 6Thfloor, P-7, Central, 5A,Bibhabati Bose, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Sarani Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 Westbengal-700020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm1113E Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Smt. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025

capital gain and income did not include any business income or operational income and therefore, the ld. AO concluded that there was no business activity, yet the assessee company debited an expense of Rs. 1,76,64,882 out of which the interest paid is Rs. 1,74,12,682 and accordingly, disallowed the interest on the ground that