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

section 49(1), the cost of acquisition and period of holding of the donor are considered in the hands of donee. Thus the Ld. PCIT erred on fact that the property is not a long term asset when the same was acquired in 1998. The Ld. PCIT erred on law that the capital gains arising on such long term capital

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]

90,616/- incurred from the sale of equity shares on recognized stock was rightly set off against the long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- earned from the sale of unquoted equity shares of M/s IRC Infra & Reality Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. A.R referred to provision of Section

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

90,000/-. At this juncture, a look at section 55A becomes necessary. This is reproduced hereunder :— "55A : With a view of ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset for the purposes of this chapter, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of capital asset to a Valuation Officer— (a) In a case where the value of the asset

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

90,28,838/-. Accordingly, the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. It is prayed that facts being identical, following the precedent the addition made on account of alleged bogus long term capital gain be deleted in full and the appeals of the assessees are allowed.” 10. Though, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed the written submissions

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

90,28,838/-. Accordingly, the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. It is prayed that facts being identical, following the precedent the addition made on account of alleged bogus long term capital gain be deleted in full and the appeals of the assessees are allowed.” 10. Though, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed the written submissions

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

90,28,838/-. Accordingly, the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. It is prayed that facts being identical, following the precedent the addition made on account of alleged bogus long term capital gain be deleted in full and the appeals of the assessees are allowed.” 10. Though, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed the written submissions

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

90,28,838/-. Accordingly, the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. It is prayed that facts being identical, following the precedent the addition made on account of alleged bogus long term capital gain be deleted in full and the appeals of the assessees are allowed.” 10. Though, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed the written submissions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains\nmade by him for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets.\nWe find therefore that on this ground also, the assessee is liable to succeed. The\nappeals are, accordingly, allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set\naside.'\n12. In view of the interpretation given to the word \"utilized\" used in section

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 the Act in respect of long-term capital gain arising sale of equity shares from the listed companies, which were found to be the penny stock companies by both the lower authorities and the long-term capital gain so claimed found to be bogus in nature. We find that recently this Tribunal has adjudicated the similar

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 the Act in respect of long-term capital gain arising sale of equity shares from the listed companies, which were found to be the penny stock companies by both the lower authorities and the long-term capital gain so claimed found to be bogus in nature. We find that recently this Tribunal has adjudicated the similar

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

90,78,228/- was disallowed to the assessee while computing the long-term capital gain on sale of building. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the asseessee has filed his return of income on 30.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.33,67,460/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section

SMT.SHYAMALI DAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

capital gain Rs.1,56,77,990/-, but the actual sale consideration is Rs.1,38,87,440/-, as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. (3) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A] was wrong in not justified in making additions of Rs.17,90

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

90)(SC), Ground No. 2(a) of the appeal of the department is, therefore, dismissed. 31. The alternative contention of the department that the receipt was liable to Capital Gains Tax in view of the provisions of section

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

90)(SC), Ground No. 2(a) of the appeal of the department is, therefore, dismissed. 31. The alternative contention of the department that the receipt was liable to Capital Gains Tax in view of the provisions of section

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

90)(SC), Ground No. 2(a) of the appeal of the department is, therefore, dismissed. 31. The alternative contention of the department that the receipt was liable to Capital Gains Tax in view of the provisions of section

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gains exemption has to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 11(lA). However, the assessee has not computed income in this manner. In the case of institutions covered by Section 11, the amount kept under corpus fund has been exempted in the year of receipt. Since investment in mutual fund is a valid mode of investment