PRASHANT SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

disallowance u/s 54 of the Act. We have also perused the order of the ld. CIT(A) and it appears to us that he has also dismissed the appeal thereby giving finding that request of the appellant to allow the exemption u/s 54 of the Act is hereby denied as we agree with the contention of the ld. AO Page

ARUNAVA BHATTACHARJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.203/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arunava Bhattacharjee…………………………………..........….…… Appellant P 190/1, Bidhan Nagar Road, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700067. [Pan: Aeipb7392A] Vs. Acit, Circle-9(2), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 09, 2023 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 01.02.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Pcit Observed From The Assessment Records That The Assessee Had Sold A Guest House, Located At Ganganagar On 20.02.2016 At Rs.4,50,00,000/- Which Was Acquired On 01.12.2007. The Assessee Computed Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.2,00,26,945/- From The Sale Of The Aforementioned Property & Out Of The Said Capital Gain, The Assessee Had Claimed A Deduction Of Rs.1,17,03,326/- U/S.54Ec In Itr. But In Its Revised Computation The Assessee Had

disallowed. He show-caused the assessee in this respect. In response, the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceeding the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,67,03,026/- u/s 54EC of the Act, whereas, the maximum deduction permissible under the said section was Rs.50,00,000/-. That thereafter the revised computation was furnished and the deduction u/s 54EC

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 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 06.07.2023 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 In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee explained I.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta before the ld. CIT(A) that there was no dispute that agreement of transfer of the residential

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

disallowance of deduction u/s 54 amounting to Rs. 1,06,07,936/-made by AO is confirmed and these grounds are dismissed.” 05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that assessee has sold his old property on 03.06.2016, whereas the agreement to purchase for the new property was rendered into

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

section 263 which says ‘commissioner may call for and examined the records of the proceeding if he consider any order passed there in, by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest if revenue’ whereas in present case the AO had already conducted the inquiry, allowed the deductions as permissible. 4. That

M/S. PEARL TRACOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

54F is available in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." 13.8. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue

SRI RAMKRISHNA GHOSH,MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

54F in the remand proceedings, ld. AO had issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all the 11 parties from whom assessee had purchased various materials used in construction of residential building. Ld. AO noted that two parties viz., Sumit Marbles and Madan Trading denied having transactions with the assessee. Ld. AO further observed that major 4

SIDDHARTH PAHWA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-33(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

disallowing the entire claim of deduction preferred u/s 54F of the Act, on the ground that he failed to transfer the Sale proceeds of the flat in a separate Capital Gain Account created with a Bank for the purpose of making investment in a new flat. Further, the Ld. AO has considered wrong purchase cost and financial year of acquisition

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

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned 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. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

disallowed the claim of deduction/exemption of Rs. 51,37,862/- made towards purchase of land and recomputed the total income at Rs.99,28,332/-. 3.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but partly succeeded. 4. Now, the assessee is an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has firstly contended that

RAHUL SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

54F of the Act. We note that the ld. CIT (A) passed a very comprehensive and speaking order while allowing the appeal of the assessee dealing with the each and every aspect of the matter. We note that the house was under construction even at the time of search as is apparent from the seized ITA Nos. 1661 & 1238/KOL/2024 Rahul

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. RAHUL SARAF, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

54F of the Act. We note that the ld. CIT (A) passed a very comprehensive and speaking order while allowing the appeal of the assessee dealing with the each and every aspect of the matter. We note that the house was under construction even at the time of search as is apparent from the seized ITA Nos. 1661 & 1238/KOL/2024 Rahul

JAI SALASAR BALAJI INDUSTRIES(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle – 4(1), Kolkata 5, Bentinck Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj6970D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2023 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 Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 28/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Steel. E-Return Filed On 27/10/2018 Declaring Total Income At Nil For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Case Selected For Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. Details Were Called For In Respect Of The Reason Of Scrutiny Selection. The Assessee Complied By Filing All The Relevant Details & The Same Were Duly Examined By The Assessing Officer & He Came To The Conclusion That The Assessee Was Entitled To The Claim Of Carry Forward Of Loss To 2

54F is available in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." 14. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue

M/S RANI SATI AGRO TECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

disallowance of preliminary expenses amounting to Rs.18,634/-. Subsequently, the ld. Pr. CIT invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and framed order dt. 02/12/2015 holding that the assessment order dt. 14/03/2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the I.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s. Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. 4 revenue

K.R.OVERSEAS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-(CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

4 of 21 I.T.A. No.: 185/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 K. R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. the value of the stock of such penny scrip will have to be treated as bogus and disallowed. 24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the aforesaid decisions, and in accordance with the amendment made in section

SMITA S MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

4 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 599/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Smita Sachin Mehta. and drastic consequences unless corrected or revised by a higher authority under Section 154 or Section 264, as the case may be. The exercise of power under Section 143(1)(a) is, therefore, required to be scrutinised carefully and kept strictly within the bounds of the statute

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]

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 as contained in section