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.

217 results for “condonation of delay”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai416Chennai341Kolkata217Delhi153Ahmedabad145Hyderabad123Jaipur118Bangalore112Karnataka103Chandigarh85Pune70Surat50Calcutta46Nagpur35Panaji35Indore30Visakhapatnam24Lucknow24Raipur22Rajkot19Agra13Cuttack11Ranchi9Cochin9SC9Amritsar7Jodhpur6Patna6Guwahati6Jabalpur5Varanasi5Dehradun3Allahabad3Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 274186Section 271(1)(c)116Section 26364Section 143(3)54Addition to Income38Section 25033Penalty32Section 14A30Section 271

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

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

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

short term capital gain. 5. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law to deny the deduction u/s 54E and 54F in impugned year on the ground that transfer took plakhe in earlier year 2012-13 (AY:2013-14) but at same time directed to tax the consideration received on such transfer in impugned assessment year 2015-16, itself

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-31(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DILIP B BESAI (HUF), KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 217 · Page 1 of 11

...
28
Limitation/Time-bar27
Deduction26
Disallowance26

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2799/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2017AY 2006-2007

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

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shah, FCA
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 3. The only issue to be decided in these appeals of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in treating the assessee as an investor of shares as against trader of shares treated by the ld AO in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The facts

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

condone the delay in filing of cross objections by the assessee for both the years under appeal and admit the same for adjudication. CO No. 153/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2006-07 – Assessee CO CO No. 154/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2007-08 – Assessee CO & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 3. The only issue

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

condone the delay in filing of cross objections by the assessee for both the years under appeal and admit the same for adjudication. CO No. 153/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2006-07 – Assessee CO CO No. 154/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2007-08 – Assessee CO & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 3. The only issue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LOKENATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 300/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A & A.K. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aroop Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of revenue for hearing. 2 ITA No.300-418/Kol/2011, AY 2006-07 Lokenath Saraf Securities Ltd. 3. We find from the quantum involved in the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is having tax effect of less than Rs 10 lacs. The CBDT in its recent Circular No. 21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015 had categorically

M/S. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 418/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A & A.K. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aroop Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of revenue for hearing. 2 ITA No.300-418/Kol/2011, AY 2006-07 Lokenath Saraf Securities Ltd. 3. We find from the quantum involved in the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is having tax effect of less than Rs 10 lacs. The CBDT in its recent Circular No. 21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015 had categorically

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/KOL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 10(38)

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the Revenue on merit. 4. In Ground No 1 raised in this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in accepting the treatment given by the assessee to the profit from sale of certain shares as business income instead of short-term capital

SMT. ROMI LAHIRI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee purchased a plot of land on 5.2.2004 for Rs. 3,72,140/- and sold it away on 7.12.2005 for Rs.9,93,700/-, but claimed both long term capital gains as well as benefit under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 948/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2015-16

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/-.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 250

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

EXIM SCRIPS DEALERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 502/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 502/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 412, Mukti Chambers Kolkata Vs 4Th Floor 4, Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaace6906E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Girish Sharma, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 10/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. This Assessee’S Appeal Is Time Barred By 43 Days. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That There Is Reasonable Cause For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal On Time. Hence We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Girish Sharma, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Pr.CIT-2, Kolkata erred in initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as there was no case of erroneous order and/or order prejudicial

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

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1486/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

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

Section 14ASection 194CSection 194LSection 2Section 37(1)Section 40Section 48Section 50

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2644/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R and Shri G
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

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

ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE BOND COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1410/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2008-09 I.T.O. Ward 8(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. The Bond Company Ltd Pan: Aaact9317Q Deptt. (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri P.R. Kothari, FCA, ld.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

condonation of delay in filing this appeal for the reasons submitted separately. 6. That, the assessee reserves the right to amend, alter or add to any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue relates to treatment of Rs.6,51,373/- as STCG instead of business income

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

ITA 1849/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 28

short). The respondent-assessee had claimed before the Assessing Officer that they were maintaining two sets of portfolio, i.e., investment and trading portfolio and the shares, which were sold and subject matter of long-term capital gains, were held in the investment portfolio. This factual position was not disputed. 3. The Assessing Officer has recorded that as per the business

HILL QUEEN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16, disclosing total income of Rs.20,40,470/- on 28/09/2015. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the following reasons:- “(i) Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR (ii) Mismatch in amount

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

ITA 852/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 43(5)Section 73

short-term capital assets or any other capital assets). [(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" is a loss and the assessee has income assessable under the head "Salaries", the assessee shall

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

In the result the Cross Objection, No

ITA 788/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

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) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Mondal, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

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

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

ITA 2622/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

short term capital loss on sale of shares as bogus. 4. That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts of the case by adding back the amount of STCL of Rs. 54,13,374/- incurred on sale of scrip of M/s Unno Industries Ltd, M/s Tuni Textile Mill Ltd, M/s Nikki Global Ltd, M/s KDJ Holiday

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

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]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

Term 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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1420/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri Amal Sudhir Kamat, CITFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

Short Term 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