EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

54E of the LT. Act cannot be denied to the assessee on account of the fiction created in Section 50." 2. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the High Court. 3. We are informed that the Gujrat High Court as well as Guahati High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

54E of the LT. Act cannot be denied to the assessee on account of the fiction created in Section 50." 2. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the High Court. 3. We are informed that the Gujrat High Court as well as Guahati High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

54E) followed}; (iv) The argument that as s. 115JB (4) provides that “save as otherwise provided in this section all other provisions of the Act shall apply” does not mean that the exemption provisions of s. 47(iv) can be read into s. 115JB. This only means that while the computation has to be as per s. 115JB, anything over

ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

54E) followed}; (iv) The argument that as s. 115JB (4) provides that “save as otherwise provided in this section all other provisions of the Act shall apply” does not mean that the exemption provisions of s. 47(iv) can be read into s. 115JB. This only means that while the computation has to be as per s. 115JB, anything over

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

disallowed the benefit of indexation in respect of Government Securities on the notion that Cost Inflation Index was not applicable on Government securities in terms of the third proviso to section 48 of the Act as these were bonds and debentures. Third proviso to section 48 read as under: 5 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company

RAVI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed. The Ld. PCIT observed that the AO has not examined and verified the issue in the assessment proceedings thereby rendering the assessment framed to be the erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequently, show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued u/s 263 of the Act on 28.03.2025 which was replied

SHILPI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed. The Ld. PCIT observed that the AO has not examined and verified the issue in the assessment proceedings thereby rendering the assessment framed to be the erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequently, show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued u/s 263 of the Act on 28.03.2025 which was replied

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant Flat 6C, Block 2, Shree Ramnagar Residential Complex, Vip Road, Tegharia, W.B – 700052. [Pan: Actpa2426P] Vs. Ito, Kolkata……………..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Puja Agarwal, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 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 Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Who Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.12.2021 For The Financial Year 2020-21 Relevant To Assessment Year 2021-22 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.25,58,440/-. The Assessee Discharged Her Tax Liability By Way Of Tax Deducted At Source Amounting To Rs.2,80,028/-, Self-Assessment Tax Of Rs.22,740/- & Foreign Tax Credit (‘Ftc’) Of Rs.2,25,936/-. The Assessee Also Filed Form.67 Which Was Filed On 25.01.2022. An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.10.2022 In Which The Ftc Was Not Provided To The Assessee. This Disallowance Resulted In Tax Demand Of Rs.2,79,130/-.

disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner and hence, the first respondent is directed to consider only on the aspect of rejection of FTC claim within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 19. Respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner and hence, the first 10 Neetu Agarwal AY: 2020-21 respondent is directed to consider only on the aspect of rejection of FTC claim within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 19. Respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court

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]

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gain and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The ld. A.R has referred to provisions of Section 47 which enumerate certain transactions not to be regarded as transfer and consequently the provisions

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

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F , 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The transfer is defined under section 2(47) of the Act as under: 2(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Aayakar V/S. Patton Developers Pvt. Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Ltd., 3C, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 016 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabct 2076 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed the conversion of the capital asset into stock-in-trade on the ground that there was no business activities carried on by assessee-company during the relevant previous year and Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the AO on the ground ITA No.90/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT Cir-8, Kol. V. M/s Patton Developers Pvt. Ltd. Page

ACIT,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallowed the conversion of the capital asset into stock-in-trade on the ground that there was no business activities carried on by assessee-company during the relevant previous year and Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the AO on the ground that Sec.45(2) of the Act provides the assessee to convert the capital asset into stock

ITO, WD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M. PRASAD & CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: He Ao In Assessment Proceedings & Filed Books Of Account, Relevant Bills, Vouchers & Bank Statement. The Ao Determined The Assessed Income At Rs.65,85,920/- By Making The Following Additions Vide Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dt. 23-03-2013:-

disallowance in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of supra for the purpose of section 14A of the Act. Ground no. 1 raised by the revenue on this issue is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. Ground no. 2 is relating to deletion of addition on account of F & O (Future & Options)loss of Rs.69

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

disallowing the deduction u/s 54 or 54F. 6. In view of my above decision, the assessment order passed u/s 153A / 143(3) dated 30/12/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 is set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to the extent of examining the allowability of deduction u/s 54 and 54F keeping in view the directions given