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

ACS TRADERS (P) LTD.,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

50C and u/s 43CA regarding Seller Chetan Construction (Firm) and Chaitanya Construction (Prop. Kumar Om Prakash) as per information placed on record. In view of the above reason recorded as per order sheet, your case has been reopened u/s 147.[Emphasis given by us] 6. Further in order to demonstrate that the AO even during the re-assessment proceeding (after

BHAGWANT MERCHANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

2,35,226/-. The AO further, states that he has received tangible material and reliable information that the assessee has raised securities premium account of ₹38 lakhs during the previous year. He further states that the re-opening was made after obtaining sanction of the Pr. CIT, Kol-5. All the figures mentioned in this reply are factually incorrect

ACS TRADERS (P) LTD.,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

50C and u/s 43CA regarding Seller Chetan Construction (Firm) and Chaitanya Construction (Prop. Kumar Om Prakash) as per information placed on record. 3 | P a g e M/s ACS Traders Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2010-11 In view of the above reason recorded as per order sheet, your case has been reopened u/s 147.[Emphasis given by us] 6. Further

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

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

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

50C . As per provision of section 54, the capital gain will be exempted for taxation if the assessee has within a period of one year before and two years after the date on which the transfer took place ‘purchased’ or has within a period of three years after the date constructed a residential house then instead of the capital gain

DEVENDRA KUMAR SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: "ीजे. सुधाकररे"डी, लेखासद"यएवं/And"ीऐ. ट". वक","यायीकसद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

reassessment order dated 18.12.2013 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed in the absence of recording of “reasons to belief”.” 3. Since we note that the aforesaid additional grounds are purely legal in nature, we admit the same and had directed the department to produce the assessment records of the assessee to adjudicate the legal issue. Today

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]

147 read with 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

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 u/s

DAULAL KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1065/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Daulal Kothari -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aiypk 2894 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act and the reassessment was completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on 04.03.2015 determining the total income at Rs. 74,29,230/- . In the re assessment, a sum of Rs. 9,94,152/- was added by the ld. AO towards long term capital gain. Brief facts of this addition is that the assessee sold two properties