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

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

property in common pool, it will be an income of the 'HUF', however, the same will be exempt from taxation as the I.T.A No. 2244/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 12 Shri Gyanchand M. Bardia vs. ITO individual members of an 'HUF' have been included in the meaning of 'relative' as provided in the explanation to section 56(2 )(vii

BALARAM SURYAVANSHI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar)

house property. 7) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, addition of Rs.6,04,968/- may kindly be deleted. 8) For that the appellant craves leave to file additional grounds and/or amend or alter the grounds already taken either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. No one put in appearance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

house / real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context of Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

house / real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context of Section

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]

56,760/- revised computation) 1,64,80,407/- Less: Registration Expenses (As per Assessee’s 75,000/- computation) Long Term Capital Gains 1,64,05,407/- Less: Deduction u/s. 54EC (as discussed above) 50,00,000/- Total: 1,14,05,407/- 9. Therefore, the AO computed the total Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.1,14,05,407/- instead of Rs.69

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]

56,760/- revised computation) 1,64,80,407/- Less: Registration Expenses (As per Assessee’s 75,000/- computation) Long Term Capital Gains 1,64,05,407/- Less: Deduction u/s. 54EC (as discussed above) 50,00,000/- Total: 1,14,05,407/- 9. Therefore, the AO computed the total Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.1,14,05,407/- instead of Rs.69

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

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

vii b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal filed by the Revenue in this respect is unjustified and without any substance and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 2.That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was fully justified in accepting the Valuation Report obtained from the Income Tax registered Valuer for issue

DAMODAR DHARA, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-27(1), HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 414/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Damodar Dhara,......................................Appellant Thekuachak, Kumarchak, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur-721652 [Pan: Aiupd7241C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-27(1), Haldia, Dubey House, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Midnapore (East)-721602 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr.D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the income should be added to the income of the assessee as deemed income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld. A.R. contended before us that the disclosure was made by the assessee during the year suo motu to the tune of Rs.84,40,690/-, which

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

MADHU SUDAN SHARIVASTAVA,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T.,KOLKATA-17, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

property and therefore the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) do not apply since the sale and purchase is amongst the relatives only. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the PCIT did not make any enquiry and simply set aside the issue back to the file of the AO. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the exercise

UMESH PRASAD SHAW ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1943/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Umesh Prasad Shaw…………………………..…..………………………………………….…….……...Appellant C/O. D.J. Shaw & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Adyps 6806 M] I.T.O. Ward-48(3), Kolkata………………………………………...……..……………………..…. Respondent Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Tauheed, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 23Rd, 2018 O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap :-

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings was called upon by the AO to offer his explanation in the 2 I.T.A. No. 1943/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Umesh Prasad Shaw matter. The explanation offered by the assessee in this regard was not found acceptable by the AO and he proceeded

ARGHANIL MUKHOPADHYAY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(2), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

house in time, but her servant had kept it with her not understanding what it is. And when the assessee’s mother realized the seriousness of the matter, then immediately without wasting any time she approached the ld.AR and gave him the copies of the relevant case file and instructed him to file the appeal before the Tribunal

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1359/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 0993 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

56,023/- (1,14,78,523-1,22,500) and Other STCG was Rs 45,83,787/-. Assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act wherein STCG claimed u/s 111A of the Act was sought to be taxed as business income by the ld AO. 2.6.2. We find that this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Asst

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.”

property at Rs.2,22,38,588/-. The Assessing Officer thus added Rs.7,38,588/- invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 8. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the difference between the value mentioned in the transfer deed

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1309/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maa Amba Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aaecm 6507 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

vii) Godrej Agrobet Limited, (viii) Jai Trading, (ix) Bidyut Ghosh and (x) Hatsun Agro Products Limited during the year. The assessee claimed such rent from the said warehouse under the head ‘income from business or profession’ being the owner of warehouse (building). The ld AO observed that the rented area / portion of the building has not been used