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 for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. In the present case, the assessee had sold 4 depreciable assets/f1ats during the year belonging to the same Block of Assets - Building. The opening WDV of the said Block was Rs.1,33,21,798/-. The sale consideration received from these 4 properties was more than the Opening

ITO, WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIA INFRANIRMAN LTD.,, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

House, Chowringhee Square, Room No.45, 4, BBD 6th Floor, Kolkata-69 Bag (East), Kolkata-001 [PAN No.AABCI 4966 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Smt. Madhu Malti Ghosh, Addl CIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 16-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 26-04-2019 घोषणा

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

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 be eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act and the assessee is not liable to pay any capital gains tax. 10. To appreciate the issue under consideration, we refer to the provisions of section 54F which reads

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. Though, the full value of consideration as defined u/s. 50C of the Act is more than the net sale consideration as referred in section 54F(1

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

BOC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

section 50C contemplates the adoption of fair market value for the purpose of valuation of the property. We hold that once the determination of fair market value is under consideration all the relevant factors i.e. land area available for construction should be taken into account irrespective of the actual land area conveyed. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the area

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

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

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)

1. Sriniwas Gupta sub lessee State Bank 5000/- TS No. 520/03 with the City Civil Court, of India Bench-13. 3rd 2. Surya Kanti Jaiswal 5000/- TS No. 747/03 & BT Case No. 4/04, City Civil Court, Bench-13. 2nd 3. Shanti Devi Gupta 5000/- TS 748/03 & B T case No. 04/04 Tribunal 4. Sriniwas Gupta 800/- Ground TS 1391/02 & Misc

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

1 running into 189 pages and drew the attention of the Bench to the reply given to the Pr.CIT on 17.02.2018, wherein it was contended that income arising from “sale of plots” is “business income” and hence, section 50C of the Act does not apply. It was further pointed out that the assessee had acquired land, plotted the land

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

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

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

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