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

short term capital gains was claimed therefore, he set aside the assessment order to frame the assessment order afresh after considering his observations. One of the contentions raised during the course of the appeal by the assessee was that the Ld. PCIT failed to consider that the assessee had entered into two different agreements dated 03.11.2011 for which part consideration

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

short term capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

short term capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

short term capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

short term capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation

RAM NIRANJAN BANKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

short term capital asset. 3.13. Considering the facts as narrated above , we are of the considered view that assessee has correctly calculated the gain as long term capital gain and consequently we direct the AO treat the same long term capital gain at Rs. 4,19,61,865/- by setting aside the order of ld CIT(A). The ground

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

short-term capital gains at ₹12,578/- and the total income was assessed at ₹76,05,98,310/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee stated the facts as under: “3. BFM industries Ltd (A company

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

short-term capital gains at ₹12,578/- and the total income was assessed at ₹76,05,98,310/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee stated the facts as under: “3. BFM industries Ltd (A company

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Gains Account Scheme 1988 and had kept the sale\nproceeds of his old property in his savings bank account and fixed deposits\nwith an intention to purchase a new residential house property in order to\nclaim deduction u/s 54F.\n4. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the\nLd. CIT (A) failed to appreciate

RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

House, J.L. Nehru Aayakar Bhawan, 7th Floor, Vs Road, Kolkata - 700071 P-7, Chowringhee Square, (PAN: AABCR3494H) Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Bikash Chanda, CA Respondent by : Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

SHREE GOVIND PROPERTY & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Term Capital Gains of Rs. 28,80,542/ in its return of income under the head Profits and Gains of Business and Profession instead of the correct business ITA No.: 2166/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shree Govind Property & Investments Pvt. Ltd. income of Rs. 58,525/- and had duly filed a revised computation of income during the assessment proceedings

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

house property loss except for the self-occupied property against other income. Provision of section 71 of the Act has a direct bearing on this issue and the same reads as under:- “72. (1) Where in respect of any assessment year the net result of the computation under any head of income, other than "CapitaI gains”, is a loss

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO ITA NO. 5128/M/2015\ndated 22/04/2016 (A.Y. 2006-07)(Delhi)(Trib).\n25.\nIn ITA No.692/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6\nv. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.), this Court discussed the legal\nposition regarding re-opening of assessments where the return\nfiled at the initial stage was processed under Section 143(1) of\nthe

SIDDHARTH PAHWA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-33(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

short “ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15/12/2022. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Your appellant is an individual deriving income from Salary, Long Term Capital Gain (hereinafter LTCG) and Income from Other Sources out of Savings Bank Interest, Interest on Bank FDR & Bond Interest, etc. During the year under consideration, your appellant filed his return

TANUJ PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1045/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Darshan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd……………….…………....Appellant 6Th Floor, Unit-6A, 238A, A.J.C. Bose Road, L.R. Sarani S.O., Kolkata - 700020 [Pan: Aacct4910B] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata…………….................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnine Debarma, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 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 20.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘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. A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 147/143(3) Was Passed By The A.O Who Did Not Hold Valid Jurisdiction & Therefore The Impugned Order Being Ab Initio Void Deserves To Be Quashed. B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existent Entity & In

term capital gains by I.T.A. No.1045/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (successor to Darshan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd sale of shares of M/s Nivyah Infrastructure and Telecom Services Limited. The Coordinate Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 08.08.2023 has held that the reopening of the assessment as bad in law. The relevant part of the order

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

short-term capital gain as the assessee, before the sale of this property, got it valued by a registered valuer. A copy of valuation report as on 14.04.13 showing its market value at Rs. 5,84,00,000/- is enclosed. From the report of the valuer it may kindly be seen that the flat had no car parking space

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

House Building as the Income under Business and Profession of the Appellant which has been also disclosed before the Ld. Assessing Office during assessment proceeding. 4. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in dismissing Grounds nos. from 1 to 20 of the appeal. The aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to each other and the appellant

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Housing Projects Ltd. reported in [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) ii) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2018] 99 taxmann.com 382 (Delhi) 3 I.T.A. No. 1014/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Graphite India Ltd. iii) Decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case