RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

capital gains. Accordingly the ground raised by the revenue in this regard for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 is dismissed. 6. ADDITION TOWARDS UNVERIFIED PURCHASES – Rs. 55,50,937/- GROUND NO. 2 IN ITA NO. 1064/Kol/2010 FOR AY 2006-07 The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee made purchases from the following parties :- Mayur

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

capital gains. Accordingly the ground raised by the revenue in this regard for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 is dismissed. 6. ADDITION TOWARDS UNVERIFIED PURCHASES – Rs. 55,50,937/- GROUND NO. 2 IN ITA NO. 1064/Kol/2010 FOR AY 2006-07 The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee made purchases from the following parties :- Mayur

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

In the result, Ground r.w

gains earned by the assessee. 6.6. He argued that Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, has been wrongly invoked by the He argued that Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, has been wrongly invoked by the He argued that Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, has been wrongly invoked by the Assessing Officer

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

8. In the appeal filed by the assessee, it is disputed that once the Ld. CIT(A) had held that the transfer of the property did not take place during the year and no capital gains was assessable during the year, it was not justified in further directing the Ld. AO to recompute the capital gains by considering the cost

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

8. In the appeal filed by the assessee, it is disputed that once the Ld. CIT(A) had held that the transfer of the property did not take place during the year and no capital gains was assessable during the year, it was not justified in further directing the Ld. AO to recompute the capital gains by considering the cost

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

8. As far as the issue involved in Ground No. 3 relating to the assessee’s claim for set off of Long-Term Capital Gain from sale of Bonds and right to property against Long Term Capital Loss on sale of Government Securities, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even though the Long term Capital Loss on sale

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

8 flats and car park which the assessee was to receive from the developer. However, instead of showing capital gain in the year of transfer i.e. AY 2012-13, the assessee showed capital gains of Rs. 38,00,000/- in AY 2013-14 and Rs. 24,00,000/- in AY 2014-15 which is not in accordance with the provisions

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 2(47) of the Ac of the Act and on various case-law for the proposition that law for the proposition that transfer of tenancy rights would tantamount to transfer of capital asset. He submitted transfer of tenancy rights would tantamount to transfer of capital asset. He submitted transfer of tenancy rights would tantamount to transfer of capital asset

ACIT, CIRCLE - 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRADYUMNA DALMIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 111A of the Act. With regard to the comments of the Learned AO on the holding period of shares and frequency of transactions, the Learned AR argued that it is for the assessee to decide when to invest and when to exit from the respective shares. The Learned AR informed that the part of the shares of M/s Texmaco

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

gains. In this order the provisions of section 50A were referred to. This section makes special provision for cost of acquisition in the case of depreciable asset. It says that where the capital asset is one in respect of which depreciation was allowed in any previous year; the provisions of sections 48 and 49 shall apply subject to the modification

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]

capital gain or loss has been provided in section 48 to 55. The mode and manner of computing the intra- head income/ loss and intra head setting off and carry forward of unabsorbed loss to 8

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)

section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business income, Rs.25,09,735/- as short-term capital gains and Rs.18,26,601/- as long-term capital gains, which was subjected to verification by the ld. Assessing Officer. 11. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A, ld. CIT(A) held that

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)

section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business income, Rs.25,09,735/- as short-term capital gains and Rs.18,26,601/- as long-term capital gains, which was subjected to verification by the ld. Assessing Officer. 11. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A, ld. CIT(A) held that

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)

section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business income, Rs.25,09,735/- as short-term capital gains and Rs.18,26,601/- as long-term capital gains, which was subjected to verification by the ld. Assessing Officer. 11. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A, ld. CIT(A) held that