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

Long Term Capital gains 88,98,508 However, again in 2012 the appellant revalued the land from Rs. 8,50,00,000/- to Rs. 90,00,00,000/-. Timing of revelation is again important as just from FY 2012-13, appellant started earning capital gains from the said Joint Development Agreement. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that during

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

Long Term Capital gains 88,98,508 However, again in 2012 the appellant revalued the land from Rs. 8,50,00,000/- to Rs. 90,00,00,000/-. Timing of revelation is again important as just from FY 2012-13, appellant started earning capital gains from the said Joint Development Agreement. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that during

SRI BIJAY SHANKAR HALWASIYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(4)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2353/Kol/2016 & I.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2018 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(4) , Kolkata [Pan: Aaqph 4752 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

long term capital gains for the financial year 2006-07 relating to assessment year 2007- 08.” The assessee objected to the determination of valuation of property at Rs 5.5 crores which was only based on an estimate and also informed the ld AO that the valuation officer of income tax department had visited the premises in Bhiwani

SRI BIJAY SHANKAR HALWASIYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2353/Kol/2016 & I.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2018 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(4) , Kolkata [Pan: Aaqph 4752 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

long term capital gains for the financial year 2006-07 relating to assessment year 2007- 08.” The assessee objected to the determination of valuation of property at Rs 5.5 crores which was only based on an estimate and also informed the ld AO that the valuation officer of income tax department had visited the premises in Bhiwani

BANABIR DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-50(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the discussion made

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2579/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2003-04)

reassessment proceedings.) The Assessing Officer then computed long term capital gain as follows: Capital gain computed in para 6 of this

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Long Term Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

term capital gains and pass a speaking order and determine the balance amount of unabsorbed depreciation amount of unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward to be carried forward. This, resulted in the capital gains being reduced to Nil. Thus, the computation of inc resulted in the capital gains being reduced to Nil. Thus, the computation of inc resulted

MALIKA ROY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

long-term capital gain assessable in their hands. Those returns have been accepted under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessments have attained finality. No notice under section 143(2) for scrutinizing the returns have been ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024

ARATI RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. -3(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

long-term capital gain assessable in their hands. Those returns have been accepted under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessments have attained finality. No notice under section 143(2) for scrutinizing the returns have been ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024

SAMIT RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

long-term capital gain assessable in their hands. Those returns have been accepted under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessments have attained finality. No notice under section 143(2) for scrutinizing the returns have been ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024

RAJPAT PANDYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the captioned assessee(s) are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

long-term capital gain entries were taken in large numbers by the beneficiaries, issued notices under section 148 of the Act, which were duly served upon the assessees and reassessment

SRI KAILASH PRASAD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-22(2), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the captioned assessee(s) are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

long-term capital gain entries were taken in large numbers by the beneficiaries, issued notices under section 148 of the Act, which were duly served upon the assessees and reassessment

ACIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

long term capital gain on the transfer of agro-chemical unit. It is contended that the AO ought to have considered the transfer of undertaking as a going concern for slump price. It is contended that the undertaking is a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14). It ITA No.850,1021/Kol/07, 2048,2355/Kol/05 & 487 & 507/Kol/06

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

long term capital gain on the transfer of agro-chemical unit. It is contended that the AO ought to have considered the transfer of undertaking as a going concern for slump price. It is contended that the undertaking is a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14). It ITA No.850,1021/Kol/07, 2048,2355/Kol/05 & 487 & 507/Kol/06

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

long term capital gain on the transfer of agro-chemical unit. It is contended that the AO ought to have considered the transfer of undertaking as a going concern for slump price. It is contended that the undertaking is a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14). It ITA No.850,1021/Kol/07, 2048,2355/Kol/05 & 487 & 507/Kol/06

ROHIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Long Term Capital Gains claim of the assessee in respect of sale of scrip of M/s. Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act which was held by AO to be bogus and that action of AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on appeal of the assessee. Therefore this appeal of assessee before this

BISHWA NATH KHARAKIA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-34(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 1487/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bishwa Nath Kharakia......................................……………………………………………………Appellant 39, Strand Road, Room – 68, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Afopk 1288 D] Vs Ito, Ward – 34(1), Kolkata...................……………………………………………….............Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 19, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 26.04.2019 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “I. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Income Tax Officer In Making An Addition Of Rs. 8,30,797/-, As Alleged Cash Credit, In Place Of Treating The Same As Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Appellant On Sale Of Shares Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Learned Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Said Addition On The Alleged Ground That The Transactions Looked To Him As Unnatural & Suspicious In Nature. He Should Have Appreciated That The Shares Were In The Demat Account Of The Appellant For More Than 4 (Four) Years & There Was No Specific Adverse Information Against The Appellant From Dit (Inv.) Ii. That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs. 4154/- U/S 69C Of The I.T. Act As Alleged

long term capital gain by the assessee for this amount. After taking note of the information from DIT (Inv.), the AO in the reasons recorded opines his suspicion in his own words states “moreover, the transactions cannot be considered genuine merely for the reason that they were carried out on 7 I.T.A. No. 1487/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bishwa Nath

SRI KANCHAN KAMAL MUKHOPADHYAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-20(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 587 & 588/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Kanchan Kamal Mukhopadhyay -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-20(2) Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aanpm 2997 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rip Das, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was initiated by the AO and 3 A.Yr.2008-09 he by an order dated 27.01.2014 brought to tax a sum of Rs.39,832/- being income not disclosed. 6. The assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Act in which the assessee pointed out that in the assessment order

BINA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

long term capital gain in lieu of unaccounted cash and share sold by the assessee on the said penny stock. Thereafter the ld. PCIT called upon the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment framed should not be revised on account of failure of the AO to assess the said income from sale of equity shares. Finally after