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

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

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

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

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

reassessment and computing the capital gains by invoking the provision of Section 50C of the Act, which was clearly not applicable in the assessees' case.” 8. The similar issue has been considered by ITAT Ranchi Bench in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO in ITA No. 327/RAN/2018 order dated 20.01.2020. The finding of the Tribunal in paragraph

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

50C of the Act have no applicability and Section 43CA of the Act has been 8 I.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik inserted w.e.f. 01/04/2014 and, therefore, the same are not applicable on the transactions in question during the year. Similar issue came for our consideration in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year

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

50C on the said amount and reduced therefrom the cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee and thereby made addition of Rs Rs. 76,04,62,428/-as capital gains. On appeal, the Ld CIT(A) held that the transfer of property by giving development rights took place in assessment year 2009-10. The CIT(A) also held that

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

50C on the said amount and reduced therefrom the cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee and thereby made addition of Rs Rs. 76,04,62,428/-as capital gains. On appeal, the Ld CIT(A) held that the transfer of property by giving development rights took place in assessment year 2009-10. The CIT(A) also held that

POLLY SAHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 45(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Pursuant to the issuance of the notice under section 148, the Ld. AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 20.03.2015 for A.Y. 2011-12. In this order

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

2 challenges the addition of Rs.1,71,18,489/- made by the Assessing Officer invoking Section 43CA of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer while examining the records of the assessee also possessed the individual transactions statement related to the assessee pertaining to 15 flats sold during the year of which market value was reported at Rs.6

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale 7 I.T.A. Nos. 606,607 & 608/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale 7 I.T.A. Nos. 606,607 & 608/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale 7 I.T.A. Nos. 606,607 & 608/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered

MURARI MOHAN MONI,PURULIA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), PURULIA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Murari Mohan Moni Income Tax Officer, Ward No.13, Munsefdanga Ward 3(3), Purulia, Raghunathpur, Vs. West Bengal-713304 West Bengal-723133 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adqpm3685E Assessee By : Shri Sheikh Muhammad Asif Ali, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

2), 142(1) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer called for Murari Mohan Moni, A.Y. 2012-13 certain information by issuing notice under Section 133(6) of the Act and concluded the reassessment proceedings making two additions firstly, for unexplained cash deposit of ₹19,64,500/- and secondly, addition for violation of section 50C

SEEMA SINGH,ASANSOL vs. ITO, WARD1(1), ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

section 144 of the Act dated 09.01.2023 which has been wrongly affirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that notice u/s. 148A(b) dated 12.03.2022 was issued by ITO, Ward-1(1), Asansol. Ld. AR submitted that in the said notice the AO noted that as per information received from Insight portal

HARJINDER SINGH GILL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-40(3)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case addition of ₹1,46,41,326/- is\nbad in law as original development agreement had become infructuous and a fresh\nagreement was entered into between the parties on 29.08.2017.\"\n03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on\n26.09.2013, which was processed