DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

housing or real estate land and property authorities. authorities. 24 Capital Investment Leasehold properties Purchasing a freehold may require less initial property requires a capital investment larger upfront capital compared to investment. purchasing a freehold property. 25 Flexibility Leasehold properties Freehold properties offer less flexibility as provide more flexibility the lessee is bound by as the owner has the terms

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

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

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

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

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

property and the sale consideration has been fixed in such agreement" recognizing the incongruity that the date agreement of sell has been ignored in the statute even though it was crucial as it was at this point of time that the sale ITA No.2049/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 ITO Wd-6(2), Kol. Vs. M/s India Infranirman Ltd. Page 5 consideration

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 which is again not been disputed by the Revenue. The consideration as determined under section 50C based on the stamp duty authority valuation is not a consideration which has been received by or has accrued to the assessee. Rather, it is a value which has been deemed as full value of consideration for the limited purposes of determining

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

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.”

2 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti mentioned above. Assessee in her own admission dated 04.01.2016, has given advance for the purchase of two flats RS.2000000/- to Exclusive Home Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.4000000/- to Amit Enterprises. Assessee has further admitted that she had spent Rs 125000/- towards construction of the house at shantiniketan.” 4. From the above

LALJI & SONS,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property & capital gains. The assessee filed its return on 22-09-03 showing a total income of Rs.1,96,808/-. Accordingly, the said return was processed by raising a demand of Rs.206/-. Subsequently, on an information regarding declaration of less value of the property by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO reopened the original assessment

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

M/S KARB ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

housing project on land owned by it and it is also developing flats on land owned by other persons or companies. The A.O notes that the return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Thereafter, he issued statutory notices. According to the A.O, the assessee responded to the notices and had filed replies to the queries

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, for the purpose of stamp duty valuation, is 10% more than the stated sale consideration, the stated sale consideration will be accepted at the face value and the anti-avoidance provisions under section 50C will not be invoked. 8. Once legislature very graciously accepts, by introducing the legal amendments in question, that there were lacunas in the provisions

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

2. Vide High Courts order dated 18.1.2007 there was demerger of BMF Industries Ld. (Paper book page 130-145) 3. Before demerger the property at 32, Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah was revalued at 8,50,00,000/- by approved valuer on 8.8.2005, (vide paper book page 146-147) accordingly the value of the property was taken

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

2. Vide High Courts order dated 18.1.2007 there was demerger of BMF Industries Ld. (Paper book page 130-145) 3. Before demerger the property at 32, Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah was revalued at 8,50,00,000/- by approved valuer on 8.8.2005, (vide paper book page 146-147) accordingly the value of the property was taken

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

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

2. The assessee is a company and 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 and valuation as per Stamp Duty Authority is required to adopted