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

50C read with section 48 of the IT Act on sale of depreciable property. (5) That, the Ld. Pr.CIT has wrongly

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciable asset, was governed by the specific provisions of Section 43(6) read with Section 41(4) of the Act and not by the provisions of Sections 45, 48 and 50C

DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA. , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DELIGHT SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.285/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13

section 50C, as held in various judicial decisions, as mentioned in the preceding paras. Coming to the addition in respect of depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SANTOSH PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Santosh Promoters Private O/O The Dcit, Cc-1(1), Limited Room No.305, 3Rd Floor, 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Gariahat, Kolkata-700029 Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs7546M Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Lakra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

section 50C, as held in various judicial decisions, as mentioned in the preceding paras. Coming to the addition in respect of depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TIRUPATI NIRYAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), O/O The Dcit, Central Circle 1(1) Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Vs. 110, Shantipally, Em By Pass Kolkata-700029, West Bengal Pin-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct4058P Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

depreciable assets U/s 50 of the Act but the ld. AO erroneously calculated the capital gain in this disregard to the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The ld. AR further submits that property in question was sold in F.Y. 2011-12, relating to A.Y. 2012-13 at a sale consideration of ₹11,51,08,600/-, whereas the value

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. In defence of his argument, ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions:- (i) Green Fields Hotels & Estates (389 ITR 68) (Bom HC); (ii) Dy. CIT v. Tejinder Singh (19 taxmann.com 4) (ITAT Kolkata) (iii) Atul G Puranik vs. ITO (11 ITR (Trib.) 120) (ITAT Mum (iv) Sowmya Sathyan

BOC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

section 50C is not applicable on sale of building, being depreciable assets. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

depreciable assets as a long-term capital gain, disregarding provision of section 50C. Despite recognizing that the transfer of business

SHYAMSREE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

depreciable assets forming part of the block of assets ‘building’ was computed and offered to tax by the assessee as per section 50 of the Act since the said block of assets was completely exhausted in the year under consideration as a result of sale consideration of the four flats was more than the opening value of the building

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AJANTA FINE FOODS PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08

Section 32 for the limited purpose of claiming depreciation on the expense incurred by assessee-company. Therefore the question of taxing the capital gain in the hands of the assessee does not arise. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. From the aforesaid discussion, we find that Director of assessee-company has purchased

M/S. MANGILALL ESTATES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

section 50C in statute. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the plea of the appellant that even if sec 50C is made applicable, stamp duty val9uation as on the date of agreement should be adopted and not of the date of registration. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, to delete from or substantiate

M/S SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 50C of the Act not applicable on transfer of leasehold rights. 6. 111,223 Allowed in order Claim of exclusion Explanation regarding clause Reply dated passed u/s of Debt under Explanation 1 of Sec. 07-12-2016 263/143(3) of the Redemption 115TB by virtue of which Act dated 24-12- Reserve (DRR) in adjustment of amount

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Where in the case of an undertaking, any machinery or plant or any part thereof

DEVENDRA KUMAR SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: "ीजे. सुधाकररे"डी, लेखासद"यएवं/And"ीऐ. ट". वक","यायीकसद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 50C will not be treated as your value of sale of the property and treated accordingly. vii) It is seen from the copy of the registered deed dated 31.05.2007 that your have shown sale of land property of about 1 Bigha 11 Cottaha 7 Chittacks 16 sq. ft. having JL No. 2, R.S. Khatian

MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WD-2(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Late Mahendra Kr. Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Siliguri (L/H Of Susmita Agarwal) R.C. Building , Sevoke Road Siliguri-734001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afipa 9472 M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 50C of the Act. Other aspects of the issue i.e. nature of capital asset, its location as well as its transfer in the relevant previous year are not question. We proceed in view of this admitted factual background to find that the CIT(A) has affirmed the AO’s action vide following discussion : “4. From the submission

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

depreciation of the appellant company. In computing book profit u/s 115JB also the gain on sale of above land substantially set off against the brought forward loss/depreciation as per books. The detail of Capital Gain computation as returned by the appellant company is presented as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Description of the asset with measurement Bunglow on Plot

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

depreciation of the appellant company. In computing book profit u/s 115JB also the gain on sale of above land substantially set off against the brought forward loss/depreciation as per books. The detail of Capital Gain computation as returned by the appellant company is presented as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Description of the asset with measurement Bunglow on Plot

SRI BABLU SUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

50C of the Act was Rs. 8,26,767/-. The ld AO concluded that the assessee made no renovation or repairing works from his funds. The ld AO also believed on the statement of the sister of the assessee who stated that she had made no investment in the subject mentioned property. Accordingly the ld AO concluded that the purchase