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

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by\nupholding that the father did not come under the definition of relatives. The\nsubmission of the assessee is that family was HUF and each of HUF family\nmembers have a separate legal status so the father should be considered as a\nrelative. In this aspect we have gone through the cited decision filed by the\nassessee passed

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

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

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]

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the disallowance of long- term capital loss of Rs. 14,72,545/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. AO’) vide the assessment order dated 12.11.2018 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).” 3. Brief facts of the case

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.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(2

MOHAMMED KHALID MASUD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammed Khalid Masud……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 70, Karaya Road, Circus Row Kolkata - 700019. [Pan:Afapm6677G] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Divakar Chakraborty, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 389 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Further Supported By An Affidavit Of The Petitioner Namely Mohammed Khalid Masud. Considering The Submissions Made In The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

section 50C (2) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO cannot be approved. 13. Now, having held that since the AO failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the law and for this reason the addition cannot be held legally valid, the next question arises for consideration is whether the case be set aside

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

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 195 of the Act. Hence, no disallowance could be made u/s. 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed and that of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 9. The second issue to be decided in the appeal of the assessee is as to whether

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is into the construction business. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that during the year certain flats have been sold by the assessee. Though the assessee was asked to explain the reason for the said difference, but in absence of proper reply, the ld. Assessing Officer

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

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

disallowance has been made qua section 80IA deduction claim in any of these assessments which have attained finality. That being so, we conclude that the Assessing Officer had taken only the plausible view in accepting the assessee’s section 80IA deduction claim in his assessment dated 30.03.2015 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The PCIT exercise of impugned revision jurisdiction

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of capital loss of Rs.2,07,054/- of earlier year, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee has not made the long term capital loss in the return of income filed for the A.Y 2012-13 however, he incurred the loss on the transaction. As per the provisions

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

I.T.O WD - 29(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR ADDY, KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

2 Dilip Kumar Addy A..Y.2009-10 the DVO the value of the property on the date of transfer was Rs.26882444.00 and the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities was Rs.27677138.00. However, the ld. AO has worked out the tax liability under the head ‘capital gain’ by taking the sale consideration as stamp valuation of the property in terms

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