ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

property at Mumbai was acquired on 19.11.2012, which is within one year before the date of sale of shares of M/s Benzo Chem Industries Private Ltd, on 23.03.2013, therefore the assessee has satisfied the conditions laid down in proviso (a)(i) to sub- section (1) of section 54F of the Act, which is given below for ready reference: “Section 54F

ITO, WARD - 2(3), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

4 A.Y. 2013-2014 Smt. Saroj Rani Gupta the ld. CIT(Appeals) in the proper perspective and the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54F was allowed by him merely going by the submissions made on behalf of the assessee before him. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that her land

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

4. As regards the claim of the assessee for exemption under sectin 54F in respect of land purchased for Rs.1,06,04,753/- for construction of residential house, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the exemption under section 54F was claimed by the assessee for construction of house property

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

property and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. We find that the provisions of section 54F of the Act are as below:- Section 54F – Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4

SHRI VIJAY MAHIPAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54F(4) of the Act the assessee if he wants to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Act, the net consideration received on transfer of the capital asset, to the extent it is not utilised for the purpose of purchase of a new asset, had to be deposited in a specified bank account on or before the due date

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. We find force in these arguments. Hence we direct the Assessing Officer accordingly. 6. Coming to the issue as to whether the deeming provisions of Section 50C of the Act can be applied to Section 54F of the Act, we find that the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Dr. Chalasani Mallikarjuna

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

property and shares and accordingly, claim of deduction u/s.54 and 54F has been justified. Kusumlata Sonthalia Assessment Year:2010-11 5.4 Considering the above facts as available in assessment record, I find that the contention of the Ld. AR that the issue of eligibility u/s.54 /54F was examined by the AO is only with respect to examination of "date

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

4. The brief facts qua the issue are that assessee is a school teacher cum administrator of school and has been earning income under the head salary. The assessee also declared long term capital gain on sale of flats.During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer examined the assessee’s documents relating to provisional allotment of flats which were later

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

4. The brief facts qua the issue are that assessee is a school teacher cum administrator of school and has been earning income under the head salary. The assessee also declared long term capital gain on sale of flats.During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer examined the assessee’s documents relating to provisional allotment of flats which were later

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

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

section 54 of the Act and accordingly relying on the same, the ld AO denied the said benefit to the assessee. 6 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani A.Yr.2012-13 3.7. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act on account of construction of a new house at Plot No. 99 in Sector 44, Noida. The ld AO observed that

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]

4 of 1882)” 14. On careful perusal of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, it is apparent that an agreement referred to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is roped into Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. It is therefore pertinent to refer to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property

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]

4 of 1882)” 14. On careful perusal of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, it is apparent that an agreement referred to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is roped into Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. It is therefore pertinent to refer to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4) of the Act in contrast to Section 54(2) of the Act wherein the words\n'towards' is used before the word 'purchase'. The expression 'purchased'\nused in sub-clause (a) of section 54G of the Act requires to be understood\nas the domain and control given to the assessee. In the present case, it\nis not in dispute

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]

4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government

MAMTA ANCHALIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

house property on the date of sale of silver utensils. It was contended that the assessee thus was entitled for exemption under section 54F and the A.O. was not justified in disallowing the said exemption. The Ld. CIT(A) did not find merit in this contention raised on behalf of the assessee and proceeded to confirm the disallowance made

AMIT PAREKH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property, he had borrowed housing loan and started construction on the site belonging to him. After the sale, the amount spent towards construction of the house is more than the consideration received by the sale of agricultural land and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of section 54F of the Act." 19. In the present case, the investment made

LAKSHMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD37(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.01/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, “Sparsh”4Th Floor, 35/8, Ward-37(3), Kolkata- Poddopukur Road, Kolkata- 700001 700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acvpa 3271 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Subhro Das, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2004-2005, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, In Appeal No.1219/Cit(A)- Xxiv/Set-Aside/37(3)/12-13, Dated 19.12.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee’S Income Tax Return For Assessment Year 2004-05 Was Assessed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Ao Detected That The Assessee Invested In A Property & Not Shown The Amount Of Capital Gain Of Rs.13,45,760/-. Therefore, The Ao Presumed That There Was An Excess Claim Of Rs.13,45,760/- U/S.54F Of It Act. Hence, Believing The Reason That Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment For The Year, The Ao Has Issued Notice U/S.148/147 Of The It Act. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Invested In A Property & Thus Claimed The Excess Amount

property also held on 23.02.2007. The exemption u/s. 54F entitled:- "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house