ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice. 2. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in denying the deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that the appellant did not deposit the sale proceeds of his old property

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

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

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

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

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

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

section 48(2) of the Act and so also proper deduction u/s 54 of the Act be allowed for investment in new house 2 Alok Ghosh, AYs: 2016-17 property. Hence it is prayed that arbitrary addition of Rs.13,23,960/- be directed to be deleted from the head of "Long Term Capital Gain" by making correct computation by allowing

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

6 2008-09 has allowed the issue in favour of assessee. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:- “21. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. The provisions of section 14A as originally introduced and as amended from time to time as well as the insertion of Rule 8D was subject-matter of several

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

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

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

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

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

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

section 133(6) of the Act tantamounts to be a sufficient enquiry as held by the 29 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide the recent order dated 31.10.2022 in the case of PCIT vs. BMR Commercial Private Limited reported in (2022) 6 NYPCTR 1229 (Cal), wherein Hon’ble Court upheld

SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2016-17, dated 15.04.2024, passed against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act, dated 31.03.2022. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1 For That the order of the Commissioner of Income

ACCORDION PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1546/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Accordion Properties Pvt. Ltd. –Vs- Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaeca 0439 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 2. The assessee is a company and has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 electronically on 21.09.2013. 3. The fact relating to the issue that is to be adjudicated by me in ground nos. 1 and 2 are stated by the Assessing Officer