SUGAM REALTY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [in I.T.A. No.: 381/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sugam Realty Limited. short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 01.03.2023 arising out of the Assessment Order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds

HARIT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the AY 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- AY 2014-15 Harit Properties P.Ltd. Page 2 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming

SMT. PRIYANKA GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(IT)-CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from 2 I.T.A. No.2619/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Smt. Priyanka Ganguly the order of the ld. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata (in brevity the ‘AO’) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 02.12.2018. 2. The assessee has taken

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

250% which has been achieved 5 Unisys Softwares and Holding Ind. Ltd.: AY: 2011-12 in only a span of 4 months time. Thereafter the price of shares kept on increasing further and reached a high of Rs. 272/- as on 12.11.2012. 2.2. During this period of phenomenal price rise, no corporate announcement has been made by M/s Unisys Software

M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee is a company and is in the business of infrastructure development and construction of commercial, residential and township projects. It filed its return of income electronically on 12/10/2010, declaring Nil income. The profit earned by the company of Rs.4

SMT. NILANJANA CHAKRABORTI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2013-14, on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the erroneous determination of long term capital gain at Rs.72,50,000/- by Ld. DCIT on erroneous belief and misconception

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 05.03.2024. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 24 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appellate order was noticed by the concerned person late and since

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

250(6) of the Act , has to be filed within sixty days from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated. Further, as per the provisions of Sec.253(5) of the Act , the Tribunal may admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub- section(4

BHAIRABNALA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,KALNA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [ hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’] by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals [ in short, hereafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A) (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. AY 2017-18 Bhairabnala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd Ground-1. For that

SUGAM GRIHA NIRMAAN LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 24.06.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.04.2021. I.T.A. No.: 1665/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sugam Griha Nirmaan Limited. 2. The assessee is in appeal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That

ALOK GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD.28(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

250 of the Act is unlawful, unwarranted and against natural justice. 2. That your appellant submits that correct computation of Long Term Capital Gain be directed to be computed by considering the Indexed Cost of both the properties sold as per the provisions of section 48(2) of the Act and so also proper deduction

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2014-15 dated 12.02.2024 passed against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”) dated 24.10.2016. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, on the facts

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

250(4) regarding change of head of income. He simply agreed with the AO on the so called remand report. 3. The assessee did not cooperate in assessment proceedings and produce evidences at the time of assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the additional evidences without recording reasons. This is in violation to the ratio of judgment in the case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the I.T.A. No.: 977/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 AMRI Hospitals Ltd. “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 07.02.2018 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2016. 2. Brief facts of the case

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

250 dated 15.3.2024 to comply on or before 22.3.2024 of why the gain resulting from the transfer of the depreciable capital asset should not be considered as a short-term capital gain in accordance with section 50 of the Act. The appellant responded vaguely by saying 'medical ground' without elaborating on who fell ill and how the alleged illness hindered

ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-22, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Royal Calcutta Turf Club Acit, Circle-22, Kolkata. C/O M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Vs. Co., 7, C. R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-700072. (Pan:Aaaar0769A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. Add. – House Property deduction @ 30% 19,39,79,159/- (treating as business income) 5. Add. Expenditure towards Horse Welfare 2,00,00,000/- 6. Add. U/s. 43B (prior period expense) 14,90,447/- 7. Add – Entrance Fees as revenue receipt 26,50,000/- 8. Add – 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) 7,06,352/- 9. Add – Non-deduction

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.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 27/09/2018, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, 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

AASHIRVAD VILLA LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 1372/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aashirvad Villa Limited,.........................Appellant 21A, Belvedere Road, Kolkata-700027 [Pan: Aaecs6659N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-4(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2024

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) 1 Aashirvad Villa Limited for assessment year 2020-21. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, CPC, Bengalure(in brevity the ‘AO’)passed u/s. 143(1)of the Act dated23.12.2021. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal as well