DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S GANGADHAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

158 of the paper book. AR in support of assessee’s claim also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. reported in 358 ITR 295 (SC) and on the order of Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of PFH Mall & Retail Management

DILIP KUMAR CHOWDHARY ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2460/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dilip Kumar Chowdhary………….…………………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant 545, G.T. Road (South) 6Th Floor Howrah – 711 101 [Pan : Acdpc 4418 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-46, Kolkata……........................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

house property and other sources. He filed his return of income for the impugned Assessment Year on 30/03/2014 electronically declaring total income of Rs.12,39,440/-. 3. I have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited

OBEROI BUILDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property' as against offered by the assessee under the head 'Income from business' leading to increase in assessed Income by Rs.6,43,482/- relying on the decision of CIT vs Poddar Cement Ltd reported in 226 ITR 625. The abovementioned disallowance was confirmed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata. The ld. AO opined that the appellant has furnished inaccurate

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2011–12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 11/02/2012 declaring a total income of Rs.19,12,432/-. In the instant case

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

house property, business loss, capital gains etc. while the income of the trust is to be computed as per the normal commercial principles by considering the receipt and expenditure for the relevant period. It is also stated that out of total receipts received in the relevant year at Rs.68,41,927/-, only Rs. 80,000/- was on account of donations

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

property. A mere\nforbearance to realise a claim is not expenditure.\nFrom the above, it is clear that the expenditure claimed as deduction is not\nallowable as deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in the year of raising\nliability in the books, i.e., in the relevant A.Y. whether it has been added\nback in the future assessment

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

Housing Projects Limited reported in 343 ITR 349 and DIT –vs.- Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 488. f) The fifth proposition of the ld. A.R. is with regard to the fact that the values adopted by the stamp duty authorities were highly excessive and did not reflect the true and correct market reality. The ld. A.R. submitted that

MISRILALL MINES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property, capital gain or income from other sources; the provisions of section 73 were applicable. The AO then concluded that the loss arising out of share transactions through PMS had to be treated as speculation loss.” Aggrieved by this, assessee has come up in appeal before us. 7. Before us Ld. AR for the assessee filed paper book which

SRI RAMKRISHNA SAMITY,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T.CIR - 2,SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 147 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). These appeals of the assessee arise out of the order of the Learned CITA in the following manner:- Appeal No. 26/CIT(A)/Slg/10-11 dated 25.7.2012 for Asst Year 2003-04 Appeal No. 27/CIT(A)/Slg/10-11 dated 25.7.2012 for Asst Year 2004-05 Appeal No. 28/CIT(A)/Slg/10-11

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1359/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 0993 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property", "Capital gains" and "Income from other sources"], or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE -4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GILLANDER ARBITHNOT & CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

158 (Cal) and allowed the claim of assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) as he allowed the claim of assessee by relying on the decision of ITAT in the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd., supra. This ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed. 16. The sixth issue in this appeal of revenue is against

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

House at Chowringhee, Kolkata consisting of total area of the property 35.60 kottah. The assessee has sold its property for a composite consideration of Rs. 21 crores on dated 28th June 2001 to M/s Reliance Industries Limited. The sale price for the land was considered at Rs. 17,92,41,908/- and balance

ACIT, 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

House at Chowringhee, Kolkata consisting of total area of the property 35.60 kottah. The assessee has sold its property for a composite consideration of Rs. 21 crores on dated 28th June 2001 to M/s Reliance Industries Limited. The sale price for the land was considered at Rs. 17,92,41,908/- and balance

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

House at Chowringhee, Kolkata consisting of total area of the property 35.60 kottah. The assessee has sold its property for a composite consideration of Rs. 21 crores on dated 28th June 2001 to M/s Reliance Industries Limited. The sale price for the land was considered at Rs. 17,92,41,908/- and balance

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

House at Chowringhee, Kolkata consisting of total area of the property 35.60 kottah. The assessee has sold its property for a composite consideration of Rs. 21 crores on dated 28th June 2001 to M/s Reliance Industries Limited. The sale price for the land was considered at Rs. 17,92,41,908/- and balance

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

property used for residence and cannot apply on the case of the assessee where agricultural land has been sold. The ld. Assessing Officer also observed that even Section 54F of the Act cannot be applied because the same pertains to capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. During

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) valuation of jewellery,— (i) ...; (ii) …; Page 6 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 2011/Kol/2018 C.O. No.: 117/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. LNB Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (iii) …date; (b) valuation of archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures or any work of art,— (i) …; (ii) …; (iii) …; (c) valuation of shares and securities

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee