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 the AO noticed that the assessee had not disclosed interest on A.Yr.2008-09 savings bank account to the extent of Rs.2,224.34. The assessee agreed to the action of the AO in bringing to tax the aforesaid interest income after giving credit to TDS. The AO further noticed that the assessee had earned Short term capital gain

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

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

PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 2360/Kol/2017 A.Y 2014-15 Prakasho Devi Saria Vs. Cit(A), Siliguri Pan: Agzpd611L (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain made from Compensation amount received from Haryana Govt. Perusal of aforesaid observations of the AO and finding of investigation wing shows that the Entry Operator Shri Anil Agarwal, who was the promoter of companies viz. M/s First Financial Services Ltd. and Rutron International, in his statement recorded u/s 132(4), has accepted such dubious and unscrupulous entries were done

INFINITY INFOTECH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

gain the Commissioner of Income Tax did not recommend filing of second appeal against CIT(A)'s said finding. It will therefore be appreciated that in the AY 2007-08 the administrative CIT in principle accepted that the Assessee's IT Park building was its "depreciable asset. The CIT however recommended the appeal against the relief allowed

I.T.O WD - 1(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 2269/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 I.T.O., Ward-1(4) -Vs.- M/S. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaco 7148 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Angam Shaiza, Cit For The Respondent : (I) Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate (Ii)Shri S.Jhajharia, Fca (Iii) Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate

reassessment proceedings, were rightly held to be not valid in law by the CIT(A). 19 M/s. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 27. As far as the question whether there was short term capital gain

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 28.3.2014, the income of the assessee firm representing short term capital gain

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 28.3.2014, the income of the assessee firm representing short term capital gain

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 28.3.2014, the income of the assessee firm representing short term capital gain

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

short term capital gains as per section 50 for the transfer of the agro-chemical undertaking. The appellant contends that the AO erred in not accepting the appellant ‘s computation of 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

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

short term capital gains as per section 50 for the transfer of the agro-chemical undertaking. The appellant contends that the AO erred in not accepting the appellant ‘s computation of 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

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

short term capital gains as per section 50 for the transfer of the agro-chemical undertaking. The appellant contends that the AO erred in not accepting the appellant ‘s computation of 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

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Short Term Capital Gain on sale of units of mutual funds. 4. The learned counsel for the Assessee also drew our attention to the show cause notice issued u/s.274 of the Act before imposing penalty and submitted that the said notice does not specify as to whether the Assessee is guilty of having “furnished inaccurate particulars of income

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)

short “the Act”) dated 25.03.2015 and 30.03.2015 respectively for the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. both the appeals are taken together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. A.Yrs. 2007-08 & 2009-10 ITA No. 2353/Kol/2016 – Asst Year 2007-08 2. The preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal

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)

short “the Act”) dated 25.03.2015 and 30.03.2015 respectively for the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. both the appeals are taken together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. A.Yrs. 2007-08 & 2009-10 ITA No. 2353/Kol/2016 – Asst Year 2007-08 2. The preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NUPUR CARPETS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.436/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.O, Wd-12(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S Nupur Carpets Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 23C, Ashutosh Chowdhury Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – Avenue, Kolkata – 700 019. 700 019. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcn 0170 A (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Respondent By :Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–4, Kolkata In Appeal No.195/Cit(A)-4/Cir- 12/Kol/14-15, Dated 17.12.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 01.03.2013. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Ignoring That The Assessee Kept On Changing As Per Its Own Liberty To Convert Stock-In-Trade To Investment & Vice Versa Year To Year As Per Its Convenience Specially, When The Assessee Failed To Adhere To Any Reasonable Basis & Fails To Apply Any Definite Method Of Categorizing The Income Whereas The Provisions On I.T. Act Are Differently Applicable On Business & On Investment.

Short Term Capital Gain and Long Term Capital Gain in respect of A.Y. 2006-07 and 2008-09 were treated as business income while completing the assessment for the A.Y. 2006-07 and 2008-09. It is further seen that Brought forward loss/depreciation was not adjusted with the assessed income resulting in excess carry forward of loss/depreciation.” At the time

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)

short the Act) dated 30.12.2009. 2. However in this appeal, the assessee has raised a multiple grounds of appeal but at the time of hearing, the main grievance of the assessee has been confined to the Banabir Dasgupta Assessment Year:2003-04 issue of computation of long term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. The solitary grievance

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

short term capital gains and from long term capital gains at Rs.33,83,89,890/- and assessed the total income of the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs.14,23,83,070/-. The Assessing Officer did not compute the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. He did not consider the issue as to whether book profit