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

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

section 2(29A) of the Act. In support, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Ace Builder (supra). The resultant STCG of Rs.2,9,36.337/- was set off with LTCL of the current year. A copy of the original computation is enclosed at page 2-3. However

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]

depreciation claimed 7. Large value sale of consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property reported in TDS return under section 194IA 8. Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR 9. Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR 4. After conducting enquiries with

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

2(b) above, the CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating that provisions of section 50C is not applicable on sale of building, being depreciable

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

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 of the IT Act, 1961 and explanatory notes to Finance Act, 2018 clearly mentions that the amendment would be effective from 01.04.2019. The appellant craves leave to make any addition, alteration and modification, abrogation etc. of ground or grounds on or before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. Facts in brief are that assessee

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

2 in the appeal of the Revenue. 06. The issue raised in ground no.3 and 4, is against the deletion of addition of ₹3,63,137/- under the head capital gain by learned CIT (A) as made by the learned AO by invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. 07. The facts in brief are that the assessee

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

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the decisions of Kolkata, ITAT which held the insertion of the 3rd proviso to section 50C of the IT Act to be a declaratory, curative and procedural amendment in nature when Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 Explanatory Notes to Finance

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

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

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

depreciation on the building. Therefore, there was arising STCG which worked out as under :- ITA No.588/Kol/2011 A.Y.2007-08 DCIT Cir-1, Kol. v. M/s Ajanta Fine Foods Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 Sale price of the building of Rs.64,97,321/- Less cost of acquisition of Rs. 2,89,849/- Balance STCG of Rs. 62,07,472/- Accordingly, AO worked out STCG

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

50C. Despite recognizing that the transfer of business assets cannot be counted as capital gain under section 45 of the Act in his order, the AO incorrectly interpreted the gain as long-term capital 50 for the reasons best known to him. gain by not considering section 50 for the reason best known to him. 6.8 In light

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

SHRI AMITABHA CHAUDHURI,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR (WEST BENTAL), DURGAPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2041/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02) Shri Amitabha Chaudhuri Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur 2D-401, “Avishikta 1”, 369/1, Purbachal Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdpc1857E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 01/01/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

50C(2) on o7/12/2009 for another Rs.3535896 identical Flat in the same Building, sold in May, 2005 – found credible by Hon. ITAT, Mumbai. Declared sale price of the Flat sold by assessee in March, 2006.- held by Rs.3920000 Hon. ITAT, Mumbai as acceptable for computation of assessee's LTCG. Table #1 Comparative Statement of the assessee's share in different

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

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

2 and 3 for transfer of and justification of same rights in land and (Refer notice u/s 142(1) dated building 14-09-2016) 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

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