RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a ITA No.201, 202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts

ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows: In the fact and circumstance of the case the ld CIT(A)-9, Kolkata has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of and deduction U/s 54F of the I.T. Act,61. 4. The facts

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal, out of which Ground No. 2 is the substantial ground of appeal. In this ground, the grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of ld. Assessing Officer vide which deduction of interest

HARSHAD MANSUKHLAL SHAH. ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR-29,KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 948/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Harshad Mansukhlal Shah Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata 1208, C2 Wing Sheetal Nath Vs Gordia Nagar, Kurla Mumbai - 700077 [Pan : Alops0164Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 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 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/12/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 577 Days. On The Last Date Of Hearing I.E., 21/03/2024, The Bench After Considering The Condonation Application & Other Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Condoned The Delay In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Vide Its Order Dt. 21/03/2024, Which Forms Part Of The Record. Thus, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erred In Accepting The View Of The Ao That The Disclosed Short-Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 18,67,181/- As Business Income Of Rs. 18,67,181/-.

condoned the delay in filing of the instant appeal vide its order dt. 21/03/2024, which forms part of the record. Thus, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in accepting the view

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

condonation of delay and it could not beyond the period of limitation without applying for condonation of delay and it could not beyond the period of limitation without applying for condonation of delay and it could not I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/201 I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar have been entertained

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

condone the impugned delay of 30 days in filing. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in its instant appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.109,80,30,873/- on transfer of Government Securities after applying Cost Inflation Index

SKYBRIDGE REAL ESTATES LLP,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Skybridge Real Estates Llp Dcit, Circle -34, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Mangalam-A, 5Th Floor, Room Shanti Pally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. No.507, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvfs7139R Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

capital gains was declared. He observed that statute did not reject or frown upon conversion of stock in trade into investment and the said conversion was permissible. Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15th June, 2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates that two portfolios one for stock in trade

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: (i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act ignoring the fact that the alleged sale of shares of “Dehra

M/S. B.L. TAK AND SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

condone the delay of four days for filing the appeal. 3 I.T.A. No.2622/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/s B.L. Tak & Sons (HUF) 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee set off a loss amount of Rs. 54,19,374/-. The assessee filed the return

A.C.I.T CIR - 32, KOLKATA vs. SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Chandravadan Desai Income-Tax, Circle-32, Vs 37, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Afqpd8487F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amal Sudhir Kamat, Cit Respondent By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-09, Kolkata Vide Ita No. 183/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2017-18/Kol Dated 27.09.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By The Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Dated 28.12.2017. 2. Ground Raised By The Department In The Present Appeal Relates To Treating The Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.18,36,88,168/- & Short Term Capital Gain (Stcg) Of Rs.22,898/- As Profits & Gains Of Business.

Capital Gain (STCG) of Rs.22,898/- as profits and gains of business. 3. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 171 days in filing the present appeal for which application for condonation

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

condone the delay and proceed to admit the cross objection for hearing. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in ( facts in deleting the adjustment made by the AO/TPQ amounting

BHARAT PRADHAN,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD-3(3) , DARJEELING

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 87/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bharat Pradhan, ...................................Appellant Chandra Bhawan, Bloomfield Cess Road, Dali, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal [Pan: Aenpp6778B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(3), Darjeeling, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, A.J.C. Bose Road, P.O. & Dist. Darjeeling, Pin-734101 Appearances By: Smt. Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2023 O R D E R

condone the delay. We proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal. However, his whole grievance revolves around a single issue namely, ld. Assessing Officer has erred in determining the long-term capital gain

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. At the outset it was brought to our notice by the ld. AR that the assessment u/s 143(3) was framed by the Ld. JCIT vide order dated 26.03.2013. Subsequently the assessment order was revised u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. CIT vide his order dated 27.3.2015. Accordingly

MICRO CAPITALS PVT. LTD. ,THANE vs. DCIT,C.C-4(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari

SRI SNEHASISH BHAUMIK,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.\n\n07. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act, which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal and prayed to be quashed.\n\n08. The facts in brief are that the assessment order u/s 143(3) came

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption

SRI SUSHIL KUMAR MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC, XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Smt. Madhumita Roy

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of the appeal of the assessee on merit. 3. The issue raised in Ground No. 1 relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained jewellery, which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.9,09,600/- 4. The assessee in the present case

SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BASU,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-26(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

capital gain. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 484 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation