DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

reassessment or re-computation shall be made under section-147 after the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section-148 was served: Provided that where the notice under section-148 is served on or after the 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect

ANJALI JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

53A of the Act. Section 153A of the Act, uses the expressing "pending assessment or reassessment". When a return is filed

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

53A must be registered. Also. Unregistered agreements are explicitly invalid for claiming transfer under section 2(47)(v), and courts have held such documents have no effect in law for transfer of immovable property. In case of CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini, 2017, Hon. Apex Court and in case of Ushaben Jayantilal Sodhan v. ITO, Bombay High Court held that

AJAY TRADING COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 3(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment may kindly be quashed . In defense of the arguments the Ld. Counsel relied on the decisions of various judicial forums, namely, i)New Delhi Television Ltd. vs DCIT (116 taxmann.com 151) (SC), ii) CIT vs Multiplex Trading & Industries Company Ltd. (63 taxmann.com 170) (Delhi HC), iii) Hubtown Ltd. vs DCIT (74 taxmann.com 18) (Bom HC), iv) Dr. RajivrajRanbirsinghChoudharyvs ACIT

EMPORIS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Emporis Properties Pvt. Ltd..................................…..............................……Appellant 5Th Floor, 16A, Brabourne Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadce0793Q] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-2...................….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :September 08, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :September 22, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26.03.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the assessee had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the land, in question, was stock-in-trade and not being a capital asset, therefore, consideration/deemed consideration/market value on transfer of the said land was not assessable under the head ‘long-term capital gains’ and that the I.T.A No.299/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2014-15 Emporis

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 order as having passed in the hands of Sh Banabir Dasgupta as Legal heir/representative of Late Smt. Nilima Dasgupta in substantive capacity only. 4. Computation of Long Term Capital Gains by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer noted that the fact that Smt Nilima Dasgupta entered into an Agreement to Sale on 13.7.1971 is not relevant to the computation