BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

24 results for “capital gains”+ Section 928clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai120Delhi88Ahmedabad30Bangalore26Kolkata24Pune16Jaipur16Chennai15Hyderabad14Chandigarh13Visakhapatnam7Cuttack7Cochin6Guwahati5Indore3Surat3Karnataka2Panaji2Dehradun1Raipur1Ranchi1SC1Patna1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)29Section 26317Section 80I14Section 115J13Section 50C12Section 153A11Addition to Income11Section 1449Section 139(1)9

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

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

ITA 2193/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

Deduction9
Limitation/Time-bar4
Long Term Capital Gains3
Section 50C
Section 50C(2)
Section 54F
Section 55A

Capital Gain x cost of new house Net Consideration = 2,15,90,819+1,16,57,762 10,46,60,259 Rs. 24,04,928/- 5. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) raising the following grounds: “i. That the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing

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

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

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

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

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

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

EQUITABLE MARKETING ASSOCIATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-30, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1226/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54D

section 50C of the Act and calculated the capital gains on the said sale of land at Rs.1,36,67,806/-. I.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had claimed deduction to the tune of Rs.90,44,500/- on the said capital gains u/s 54D of the Act. The Assessing

MALIKA ROY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 779/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

section 48 of the Income Tax Act ought to be deemed equivalent to the amount on which stamp duty was paid. In other words, this valuation of the Stamp Duty Authority amounting to Rs.1,35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment

ARATI RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. -3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 778/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

section 48 of the Income Tax Act ought to be deemed equivalent to the amount on which stamp duty was paid. In other words, this valuation of the Stamp Duty Authority amounting to Rs.1,35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment

SAMIT RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

section 48 of the Income Tax Act ought to be deemed equivalent to the amount on which stamp duty was paid. In other words, this valuation of the Stamp Duty Authority amounting to Rs.1,35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 468/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 44A

928+ Rs.48,07,000) - (Rs.2,61,06,063+ Rs.39,96,040)} in place of Rs.3,48,64,832/-. Hence the excess liability comes to Rs.92,56,909/-. But due to inadvertent mistyping such amount was written as Rs.48,69,666/- in the show-cause notice dtd. 06.12.2018. 2.5. The assessee submitted ledger account of inter-proprietorship bank transaction in respect

ARINDAM MUKHERJI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-31(20, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 507/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 507/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Arindam Mukherji -Vs- Ito, Ward-31(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aevpm 3352 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: I. Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 54F

capital gains on account of sale of these two rooms in a building. The Ld. AO adopted that the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of levy of stamp duty in terms of Section 50C(1) of the Act. The value determined as per 50C(1) of the Act is as below: 717.80 Sq. Ft. room

PIYUSH MOHAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 136/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 24Section 263Section 48

section 48 of the Act. According to him, assessee appears to have availed double deduction of interest on housing loan firstly at the time of furnishing return of income every year under the head loss from self occupied house property and secondly at the time of computing LTCG as claiming the same interest as direct expenses related to transfer

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 471/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustogi, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

capital asset, being share of a special purpose vehicle to a business trust in exchange of units allotted by that trust referred to in clause (xvii) of section 47; or 17 M/s Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. (B) notional gain resulting from any change in carrying amount of said units; or (C) gain on transfer of units referred

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1281/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

928 Less: Head office exps (as per point b) above) 8,84,703 Less: Diff in Depn (as per point c) above) 1,00,505 ----------------- 14,98,136 ------------------ Profit eligible for 80IA deduction 65,41,560 ----------------- 8 Adhunik Infrastructure (P)Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 7. The ld CITA upheld the action of the ld AO in rejecting the claim

APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS APEEJAY TEA LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1494/KOL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1494/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

928/- D. Discount on warehousing charges Rs. 14,000/- E. Tea Board subsidy Rs. 1,14,975/- F. Scrap sale Rs. 41,548/- G. Storm Damage claim Rs. l,48,693 /- H. Received from IOL(Indian Oil Limited)Rs . 2,34,000/ - I. Realised from Auto Entines Rs. 81,142/- J. Bazar Rent Rs. 54,450/- K. Interest on I.T.Refund

M/S APEEJAY TEA LIMITED(MARGED WITH APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2456/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT,Sr.DR

928/- charges D. Discount on Rs. 14,000/- warehousing charges E. Tea Board subsidy Rs. l,14,975/- F. Scrap sale Rs. 41,548/- G. Storm Damage Rs. l,48,693 /- claim H. Received from IOL Rs . 2,34,000/ - (Indian Oil Limited) Realised from Auto Rs. 81,142/- Entines J. Bazar Rent Rs. 54,450/- K. Interest

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1381/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

928/- only. The AO further determined the loss from silk fabric business of the assessee after including the direct and indirect cost at Rs. 2,81,91,249/- only. 4.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings also observed that the assessee has made purchases of finished goods during the year worth of Rs.12,56,44,789/- only

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1382/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

928/- only. The AO further determined the loss from silk fabric business of the assessee after including the direct and indirect cost at Rs. 2,81,91,249/- only. 4.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings also observed that the assessee has made purchases of finished goods during the year worth of Rs.12,56,44,789/- only

DECPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CHIRAG JEWELLERS, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1559/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1559/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-3(1) Chirag Jewellers 110, Shantipally, Flat 17A, Rameshwara Mansion, 10/4A Vs Kolkata-700107 Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 West Bengal [Pan : Aabfc7914L] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

capital gains in their file. shared the names of the Managing There is no mention of our Director and other Directors of M/s transaction in this statement NCL Research and Financial Services and nor are the loans given Ltd and the also took name of one by this company stated to Manish Baid, the alleged key person of be bogus

M/S. SINGHAL ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., C.C. - 4(1), KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee ( in ITA No

ITA 1072/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1071 & 1072/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 &2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

928 + 3,19,81,862]. And income comprised of profits and gains of business & profession income would be Rs. 6,16,66,965/- [11,79,50,755 - 5,62,83,790] and assessee would be eligible for deduction u/s 80IA to the extent of Rs. 6,16,66,965. This issue was not examined at the time of assessment

M/S. SINGHAL ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., C.C. - 4(1), KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee ( in ITA No

ITA 1071/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1071 & 1072/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 &2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

928 + 3,19,81,862]. And income comprised of profits and gains of business & profession income would be Rs. 6,16,66,965/- [11,79,50,755 - 5,62,83,790] and assessee would be eligible for deduction u/s 80IA to the extent of Rs. 6,16,66,965. This issue was not examined at the time of assessment

I.T.O WD - 6(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S AXIX OVERSEAS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 532/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 194A

capital reserve -- 15.12 crores 4 Investment in fixed asset 1.30 crores 1.30 crores 5 Investment in shares 14.44 crores 14.47 crores 6 Loan & advance --- 10,06,58,478 ITA No.532 & 376/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO Wd. 6(2) Kol. vs. M/s Axis Overseas Ltd. Page 3 Besides the above, assessee has claimed an interest of ₹1,71,36,916/- only