RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains does not warrant any disturbance and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 3 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed. 7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 was stated to be not pressed

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains does not warrant any disturbance and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 3 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed. 7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 was stated to be not pressed

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains as provided u/s 48(ii). The issue of cost in this case is governed by section 49(iii)(e) read with sec 47(vib). The cost of acquisition therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of the previous owner of the property. Since the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1.4.1981 the cost

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains as provided u/s 48(ii). The issue of cost in this case is governed by section 49(iii)(e) read with sec 47(vib). The cost of acquisition therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of the previous owner of the property. Since the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1.4.1981 the cost

RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

capital gains have to be computed after determining the FMC of the assets u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. He argued that the determining the FMC of the assets u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. He argued that the determining the FMC of the assets u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. He argued that

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

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

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

disallowed the claim of Rs. 12,24,360/- u/s 54F of the Act for construction cost of new residential property for want of supporting documents and considered the taxability of JDA on the basis of the latter registered agreement dated 26.09.2014 and allowed the deduction u/s 54EC of the Act from the capital gains

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

Gain from sale of Bonds and right to property against Long Term Capital Loss on sale of Government Securities, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even though the Long term Capital Loss on sale of Government Securities as claimed by the assessee after applying Cost Inflation Index was disallowed

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SURAJ KHANDEL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gain arising on sale of investment in shares as business income. 2.a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the disallowance

YAMINI KHANDEL WAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gain arising on sale of investment in shares as business income. 2.a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the disallowance

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT YAMINI KHANDELWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gain arising on sale of investment in shares as business income. 2.a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the disallowance

SURAJ KHANDELWAL,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gain arising on sale of investment in shares as business income. 2.a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the disallowance

EVEREST FINANCE & INVESTMENT COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE-34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (Ground No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2056/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Everest Finance & Investment Vs. J.C.I.T, Range - 34,Kolkata Co. M/S. G.P. Agarwal & Associates, 7A, K.S.Ray Road, 2Nd Floor, Kol - 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfe7233Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri S.S Gupta & Arvind Agarwal, Advocate Respondentby :Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xx, Kolkata, In Appeal No.232/Cit(A)-Xx/Range-34/2013-14/Kol, Dated 10.07.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 24.01.2014. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:

capital gains income of Rs.1,95,94,294/- as income under the head, Business. 5. Because that the ld. Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) was erred in law as well as in facts in upholding the disallowance

RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain resulting from sale of shares/securities which was granted exemption u/s 10(38) subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions and not the entire source which was excluded from the aforesaid sections . Therefore we are of the considered view that when the entire source is not excluded from the charging section and only special type of income is excluded

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance of short Page 4 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust term capital loss, ld. AO has mentioned it as addition towards long term capital gain

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance of short Page 4 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust term capital loss, ld. AO has mentioned it as addition towards long term capital gain

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance of short Page 4 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust term capital loss, ld. AO has mentioned it as addition towards long term capital gain

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance of short Page 4 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust term capital loss, ld. AO has mentioned it as addition towards long term capital gain

RAM NIRANJAN BANKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

capital gain at Rs. 4,19,61,865/- by setting aside the order of ld CIT(A). The ground no 2 is allowed 4. The issue raised in ground no 3 is against the order of ld CIT(A) confirming the disallowance