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

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

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Developmвы Севраар Менца\nDinesh Chandra Halder\nAuthorised Representativa\n7. We have also perused the copy of the agreement which is attached at page no.15\nto 33 and thus, it is clear from the above that all payments were made through banking\nchannel right from the F.Y. 2012-13 to A.Υ. 2018-19. Therefore, conclusion drawn by\nthe

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

property to DVO in terms of section 50C(2) of the Act if the lower sale consideration actually received by the assessee than the stamp duty value as justified by it was not acceptable. No such reference, however, was made by the Assessing Officer and keeping in view the same as well as all the facts of record, we find

M/S. WIDEANGLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

section 50C of the Income Tax Act. In other words, the grievance of the assessee relates to computation of income on account of sale of a house property

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

house before accounting year 2014-15 then no income could be deemed on account of lower payment of purchase price. In support of his contention, he filed a Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 401/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asha Vijay. paperbook and placed on record six decisions. According to him, in all these decisions it has been laid down

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

house property is less than one year before the date of sale of original asset and thus, in our considered view, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.54F of the Act.” 6.5 In view of the above discussion, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. Ground No.2 – Vide Ground No.2

KALYAN PAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 708/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Kalyan Pal,…………………………………..……….Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aacpp5347B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...…Respondent Ward-40(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West). Council House Street, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Loviesh Shelley, Jcit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 07, 2024 O R D E R

property. The assessee has adopted the figure after availing the benefit of indexation, which has not been given by the ld. Assessing Officer. He further contended that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, which has not been dealt with by the ld. Assessing Officer. 7. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

50C of the Act for shortfall in consideration shown at Rs. 90,00,000/- as against the market value of the new joint 6 Shuvro Chattaraj, AY: 2015-16 development agreement at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. He also disallowed the claim of Rs. 12,24,360/- u/s 54F of the Act for construction cost of new residential property

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

50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable under sub-section (1). (3) Where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset are not the same, the value referred

ALOK KUMAR CHAMRIA (HUF),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1487/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alok Kumar Chamria (Huf)…………........………………....Appellant 25E Chamria House, Shakespeare Sarani, 3Rd Floor, W.B. – 700017. [Pan: Aafha4854F] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata.….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta), Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 03.08.2017 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.12,14,280/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Refund Of Rs.26,980/- Was Issued. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Specific Details. The Assessee Submitted Responses & Uploaded Documents Periodically. During The Scrutiny Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Declared Long-Term Capital Gain (‘Ltcg’) From The Sale Of Immovable Property. The Assessing Officer Noted That Sale Consideration For Seven Flats As Per Sale Deed Was Lower Than The Stamp Duty Value. He Invoked

House, Shakespeare Sarani, 3rd Floor, W.B. – 700017. [PAN: AAFHA4854F] vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata.….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta), Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 19, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : November 29, 2024 आदेश / ORDER

DEBASISH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Debasish Banerjee…………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, 1, Gibson Lane, Kol- 700069.. [Pan: Agfpb3602C] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of An Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 30.04.2021 By Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata.

house property and income from other sources and the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,40,660/- for the year under consideration. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of “the assessee has reported sale consideration in the capital gain schedule of return of income, which is less than value

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

house on 03.10.2016 whereas the assessee sold the property on 09.12.2013. According to Ld. 6 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 AO, it meant that valuation was done after a lapse of three years from the transfer of property. Therefore, according to the Ld. CIT(A), the estimation of the cost of the property is not correct

RINA RAY,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2),, DARJEELING

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

house measuring 1000 Sqft., before his death in the year 1978 leaving his legal heirs, his wife and his two daughters, Smt. Rina Ray (Appellant), and Smt. Sampa Ghosh. The appellant and her sister became the owners in possession having equal share in the aforesaid properties of their late father on demise of their mother. The appellant and her sister

MRS SUCHITRA SENGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by the ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata, dated 29.05.2023. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in accepting that the Notice issued