DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 55A and it was without jurisdiction – Held, yes Taking the consistent view of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umedbhai International P.Ltd. (supra) we reverse the orders of lower authorities and allow assessee’s ground. 22. The fifth issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 55A and it was without jurisdiction – Held, yes Taking the consistent view of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umedbhai International P.Ltd. (supra) we reverse the orders of lower authorities and allow assessee’s ground. 22. The fifth issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 55A and it was without jurisdiction – Held, yes Taking the consistent view of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umedbhai International P.Ltd. (supra) we reverse the orders of lower authorities and allow assessee’s ground. 22. The fifth issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing

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

55A r.w.s. 142A of the Act before finally computing the capital gains/loss in the hands of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has illogically upheld such unlawful action of the AO on the sole allegation that the valuer visited the property after the assessee sold the same. 4. That, without any prejudice to the above

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE DIAMOND COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

disallowed by AO to adjust the income under the same head i.e., capital gains against the income of share sales & purchase on which no STT was paid. However, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO. Now the question before us arise so as to whether the transactions on which the provision of Sec. 111A

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) and thus assessment framed without such reference

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

disallowance, the AO rejected the appellant's request to refer the matter to the Department Valuation Of- ficer ('DVO') as per the mandatory procedure laid down u/s 50C. It is stated that the building is forming part of the block of assets and there- fore, actual sales consideration of building of INR 0.82 Cr has been re- duced from

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

disallowance, the AO rejected the appellant's request to refer the matter to the Department Valuation Of- ficer ('DVO') as per the mandatory procedure laid down u/s 50C. It is stated that the building is forming part of the block of assets and there- fore, actual sales consideration of building of INR 0.82 Cr has been re- duced from

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

55A of the Act read with 1st and 2nd proviso of section 50C(1) of the Act for determining the value of the property as on 20.01.2009 as well as FY 2012-13 for the purpose of cost of acquisition and sale value consideration and erring in law as well as on facts of the case to appreciate that

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

55A of the Act read with 1st and 2nd proviso of section 50C(1) of the Act for determining the value of the property as on 20.01.2009 as well as FY 2012-13 for the purpose of cost of acquisition and sale value consideration and erring in law as well as on facts of the case to appreciate that

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]

55A of the Act despite requisition by the assessee to this effect. 2 M/s Karb Associates Pvt. Ltd. I.T.A. No.1941/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 4. The brief facts as noted by the A.O is that the assessee had filed return of income disclosing total income of Rs.1,98,39,040/-. The A.O notes that the assessee is engaged