RITZ SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the disallowance of long- term capital loss of Rs. 14,72,545/- made

SMT.BARNALI DHAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Barnali Dhar Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata C/O. S.D. Verma, Advocate, 2Nd Floor, 7, Vs. Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Pan: Ajppd 6989 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 10, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 10 Was Not Justified In Not Deleting A Sum Of Rs. 9933057/- Being The Amount Wrongly Included By The Appellant Under The Head Capital Gain, While Filing Return Of Income Whereas As Per Section 54F No Amount Is Liable To Be Taxed. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Or Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal At Hearing Stage.”

disallowing a sum of Rs. 9252834/- under section 54F out of total claim of Rs. 11657762/- as made in the return of income, is arbitrary and uncalled for. ii. The ld. Assessing Officer was duty bound to make a reference to valuation officer as per express provisions contained under section 50C

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

50C on the said amount and reduced therefrom the cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee and thereby made addition of Rs Rs. 76,04,62,428/-as capital gains. On appeal, the Ld CIT(A) held that the transfer of property by giving development rights took place in assessment year 2009-10. The CIT(A) also held that

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

50C on the said amount and reduced therefrom the cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee and thereby made addition of Rs Rs. 76,04,62,428/-as capital gains. On appeal, the Ld CIT(A) held that the transfer of property by giving development rights took place in assessment year 2009-10. The CIT(A) also held that

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

disallowances under sections 14A and 40(a)(ia) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,35,48,59,800/- in the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 28.12.2016. 3. The records of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act subsequently came

ACIT, CIR-1, , DURGAPUR vs. M/S THE DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD., DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar)

section 50C of the Act in the case of both the assessees.” 4.3. The issue is squarely covered by the above decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal are dismissed. 5. In Ground

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

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 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, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

Disallowance of rent deposit of Rs.2,04,000/- was made by not treating it as revenue expenditure. Further the ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is not maintaining regular books of accounts because they were not produced before the Assessing Officer in spite of granting various opportunities. During the year, subsequent to the announcement of demonetisation scheme

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

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]

Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was not made by the A.O keeping in view the circular No. 5/2014 (F.No. 225/182/2013-ITA.II) dated 11-02-2014 as well as provisions laid down in the Act. (d) It is seen from clause 17 of TAR that the assesse did not take valuation of properly sold as per provisions of section 50C

DULARI DEVI HETAMSARIA, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHYAM SUNDER HETAMSARIA,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1290/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

disallowed under section 43B, while computing the business income of the said previous year.” 12. We note that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai, in the case of M/s John Flower ( India) Pvt. Ltd, in ITA No.7545/Mum/2014, for A.Y. 2010-11, order dated 25.01.2017 held that if the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared

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

section 50C, as held in various judicial decisions, as mentioned in the preceding paras. In view of the above discussion, addition of Rs. 1,91,83,329/- under the head 'Long Term Capital gains' is deleted. 4. Grounds of Appeal No.3 4.1 Assessee had made investments in shares. However, assessee had not disallowed

ITO, WD-41(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DELTA CONSTRUCTION, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 1424/Kol/2014 Assessment Year – 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-41(2), Kolkata M/S. Delta Construction -Vs- 5D, Gopal Bose Lane Kolkata-700050 [Pan: Aaefd7122L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.37,97,502/- as tabulated below:- SERIAL NAME DEED VALUE MARKET VALUE DIFFERENCE (A) (B) [B-A] 1 Deepali Bose & Salil Bose 650000 1114939 464939 2 Bibhas Chandra Mondal 307000 510541 203541 3 Geeta Roy & Debabrata 1050000/- 1441396/- 391396/- Roy 4 Jayanti Paul 1245000 1735461 490461/- 5 Antara Mukherjee 1196000 2165775 969775/- 6 Sankar Chakraborty

M/S KARB ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

disallowed u/s 43CA of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee.” 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the A.O, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same by holding as under: “The 2nd ground of appeal is regarding the addition of Rs.54,88,952/- made

SMT. NILANJANA CHAKRABORTI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

disallowed. Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(C) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.1. On appeal, the ld. First Appellate Authority confirmed the denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee earned long term capital gain on sale of two plots of land. The total long term capital

SRI RAJ KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Sri Raj Kumar Baid V/S. Dcit, Circle-36, (Pop. M/S Rameshmotors), 110, Shanti Pally, Em 9, Mangoe Lane, 1St Floor, Bye Pass, Near Ruby R. No29, Kolkata-001 Hospital, Aayakar [Pan No.Aeopb 6625 A] Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sunil Surana, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 25-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 24-08-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Calls Into Question Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 30.03.2017 Passed In Case No.119/Cit(A)-10/Cir-36/15-16/Kol Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Making Long Term Capital Gains Addition Of ₹37,85,396/- After Invoking Section 50C As Well As The Disallowance The Expenditure Claimed In Question Of ₹2 Lac Allegedly Incurred On Transfer Of Property & Claim As Deduction Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Has Filed An Additional Ground First Of All Pleading Therein That Both The Lower Authorities Have Erred In Applying Section 50C Of

section 50C as well as the disallowance the expenditure claimed in question of ₹2 lac allegedly incurred on transfer of property

M/S NHAI,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T (TDS),SILIGURI, SIKKIM

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

50C of the Act. Therefore, the AO disallowed the claim of assessee and determined the capital gain as per the provisions of section

DR ABHIJIT GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Dr. Abhijit Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward-55(3), Kolkata

disallowed the same on the alleged ground that the assessee had not incurred the expenditure for payment to unauthorized occupant on the incorrect notion that the assessee had claimed the payment made to unauthorized occupant as deduction under section 48(1) of the Act. Before the Ld CIT(A), the assessee, while computing the deemed value of sale consideration