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.”

house property. He further submits that Section 50C of the Act, does not apply to investment made u/s 54 F of the Act. For this

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

50C of the Act. 2. Date of sale 24.07.2008 3. Cost of acquisition 50% of the sum of Rs.77,28,900/- i.e. Rs.38,64,450/- as discussed in this order 4. Date of acquisition 27.08.2005 5. Short Term Capital Gain Difference of 1-3 The AO shall work out the calculation as per Sr. No. 5 above and bring

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

50C of the Act. 2. Date of sale 24.07.2008 3. Cost of acquisition 50% of the sum of Rs.77,28,900/- i.e. Rs.38,64,450/- as discussed in this order 4. Date of acquisition 27.08.2005 5. Short Term Capital Gain Difference of 1-3 The AO shall work out the calculation as per Sr. No. 5 above and bring

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.”

house property, the whole of the capital gains, even though worked out in terms of section 50C of the Act, would

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

house property which were sold during relevant year and STCG of Rs.3,16,04,127/- was declared. The stamp duty value of the properties was Rs.9,91,43,740/-, which for the purpose of section 48, shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer, as per section 50C

ACIT, CIR-I, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. MRS HARMEET KAUR, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

house property and accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law, in cancelling the assessment order without considering the implication of Section 50C

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

section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house no. 32. Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah on 7th January 1910. The name of Bengal Flour mill was subsequently changed to BEM Industries Ltd. (Please see Development agreement dated 1st January 2007 at page

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

section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house no. 32. Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah on 7th January 1910. The name of Bengal Flour mill was subsequently changed to BEM Industries Ltd. (Please see Development agreement dated 1st January 2007 at page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, with these remarks, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

property, one cannot proceed to draw an inference against the assessee, and subject the assessee to practically prove his being truthful in stating the sale consideration. Clearly, therefore, this insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1) is in the nature of a Page 4 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 1391/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ashiana Housing

M/S. SINGH UDYOG PVT. LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravivs M/S. Singh Udyog Pvt.Ltd., Pr.Cit-1, C/O-Rajesh Mohan & P-7, Chowringhee Associates, Bagati House, Unit Square, Room No.4, No.18, 5Th Floor, 34, Ganesh 7Th Floor, Kolkata- Chandra Avenue, 700069. Kolkata-700013. Pan-Aagcs8184E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sunil Surana, Ar Respondent By Sh. G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.03.2018 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Passed By Pr. Cit-1, Kolkata For Ay 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 05.09.2013 For The Impugned Assessment Year. Pr.Cit Passed A Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act On 16.03.2018 On The Ground That Section 50C Of The Act Comes Into Play In The Case On Hand & Valuation As Per Stamp Duty Authority Is Required To Adopted For Calculation Of Capital Gains & Hence, There Was Error On Facts & In Law Committed By The Causing Prejudice To Revenue. Hence, He Held That Assessment Order Dated 18.01.2016 Passed By The Ao Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee’S Business Is Sale Of Plots & The Income In Question Is Assessed Under The Head “Income From Business & Profession”. Ld.Ar Filed A Paper Book

house sites, got necessary approval and thereafter, sold, plotted lands to third parties. It was submitted that the issue is whether the income in question is assessable under the head Business or under the head “Capital Gains”. He argued that the AO has assessed the income under the head “income of the business” and hence, section 50C

SHALINI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

50C of Rs.1,36,00,000/- I.T. Act Total purchase value of sold Rs. 21,02,625/- property on 20.01.2006 Less: Index value of sold property Rs. 36,04,500/- Rs.21,02,625.852/497 Capital Gain Rs. 99,95,500/- Purchase of land on 27.02.2012 Rs.1,06,04,753/- Cost of construction of residential Rs. 22,67,700/- house property

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house was exempted under s. 54.—CIT vs. Ved ITA No.169/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 ACIT, Cir-22, Kol. Vs. Mrs Sheela Chopra Page 7 Parkash & Sons (HUF) (1993) 115 CTR (P&H) 63 : (1994) 207 ITR 148 (P&H) followed.” Taking a consistent view and relying on the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble High Courts and facts of the present

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

50C of the Act. However, large value sale of consideration of property reported in TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause

ARINDAM MUKHERJI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-31(20, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 507/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Arindam Mukherji -Vs- Ito, Ward-31(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aevpm 3352 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C(2) of the Act. The AVO determined the fair market value of the property at Rs. 3,47,83,000/- vide his report dated 16.03.2015. Hence, it was argued even as per AVO, the value of the property as on 08.12.2011 of the very same property was only Rs. 1832 per sq. ft., which having been adjusted with

SUBRATA DAW,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

House Property (b) Income from Business (c) Capital Gain and (d) Income from Other Sources. Scrutiny Assessment was selected through CASS. The assessee was the owner of 1/4th share in an ancestral joint family property comprising of land and building situated at 152,153,154, & 155, Maniktala Main Road, Kolkata -700054 which was totally sold out by 2 Subrata

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

50C. Despite recognizing that the transfer of business assets cannot be counted as capital gain under section 45 of the Act in his order, the AO incorrectly interpreted the gain as long-term capital 50 for the reasons best known to him. gain by not considering section 50 for the reason best known to him. 6.8 In light

M/S. MANGILALL ESTATES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

section 50C in statute. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the plea of the appellant that even if sec 50C is made applicable, stamp duty val9uation as on the date of agreement should be adopted and not of the date of registration. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, to delete from or substantiate

KAUSHALYA DEALERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Kaushalya Dealers Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata Ltd. 498/H/4, Karl Mark Vs. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 023. Pan: Aadck8028Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr). Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 29.05.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit] Relevant To Ay 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised By Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act & Also The Consequent Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That Revisionary Jurisdiction As Well As The Consequent Order Is Invalid & Nullity As Necessary Conditions Envisaged In Section 263 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Before Invoking The Revisionary Jurisdiction. The Fact In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed A Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 69,040/- Which Was Processed U/S 2 Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd. 143(1) Of The Act. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Assessment Was Framed Vide Order Dated 05.09.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing The Income At Rs. 69,040/- After Taking Into Account The Various Contentions/Replies Of The Assessee Filed During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

house property during the previous year. The purchase cost is shown at Rs. 4,28,13,810/- whereas the Stamp Duty valuation of the said property is at Rs. 5,05,27,200/-. The officer did not pass on the information in regard to applicability of section 50C