RENU BOTHRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 46,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

68,700/-. It was the submission that consequently the AO invoked the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act and had made the addition of the differential amount of Rs.18,94,800/- as the income of the assessee. It was submission that the assessee had requested the valuation by the DVO. The DVO had valued

ACIT, CIR-I, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. MRS HARMEET KAUR, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

68,863/- ( 1,55,88,863+2,54,80,000). The ld AO further observed that the sale consideration value adopted by the stamp valuation 3 Mrs. Harmeet Kaur A.Yr.11-12 authority was Rs 9,60,80,616/- and whereas the assessee had declared only Rs 6,00,00,000/-. Accordingly, by invoking the provisions of section 50C

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

68 of the Act. 7 I.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik 5.1. While concluding, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that most of the issues have been raised by the assessee in its appeal before this Tribunal for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2016-17 and the facts are almost identical and they have been

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:-

68 of the Act.” 8. Now, before adverting to the working of the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer, it is brought to our notice that the books of accounts of the sole proprietorship concern M/s. S. Paik & Co., are duly audited u/s 44AB of the Act. Assessee follows mercantile system of accounting and details of each and every

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. In defence of his argument, ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions:- (i) Green Fields Hotels & Estates (389 ITR 68) (Bom HC); (ii) Dy. CIT v. Tejinder Singh (19 taxmann.com 4) (ITAT Kolkata) (iii) Atul G Puranik vs. ITO (11 ITR (Trib.) 120) (ITAT Mum (iv) Sowmya Sathyan

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68 of the\nAct does not overtly result in any significant revenue gain since the rate of\ntax prevailing for this assessment year was 30% u/s 115BBE of the Act.\nThis rate was enhanced to 60% from AY 2017-18 only. While the issue of\ntaxation would at best be a secondary consideration in deciding the merit\nof the case

AMAR DAS,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(3),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 306/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Amar Das -Vs- Ito, Ward-1(3), Durgapur [Pan: Aihpd 2414 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act in the sum of Rs. 9,30,000/-. We direct the ld. AO accordingly to delete the addition of Rs 9,30,000/- . With regard to remaining sum of Rs. 58,240/- representing interest income on various deposits, no explanation was offered by the assessee and hence we hold that the same has been rightly taxed

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, 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. 431/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar Paik Dcit, 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: 08/11/2023 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. 03/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.FAC. was absolutely in error in impliedly upholding the 2 I.T.A. No. 431/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar Paik action of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1), Kolkata without proving any infringement thereof and the purported conclusion reached on that behalf

ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MID LAND PROJECTS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 50C for the purpose of computing capital gains on sale of the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings, we hold that the Learned CIT(A) is right in restricting the capital gains at Rs. 3,56,354/- as against Rs. 45,62,018/- made by the Learned AO. Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised

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

MAYFAIR VILLA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes regarding issue no

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

1) accepting the return of income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was also issued. The AO after going over the submission made by the assessee following additions have been made: i) Disallowance of share capital including premium Rs. 20,00,000/- ii) disallowance expenses

NALANDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: 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. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

50C is within the range of ± 10% and, therefore, the provision of Section 56(2)(x)of the Act are not applicable which provides that where the market value of the property is more than the sale consideration received by the assessee then the difference between the two shall be considered. The case of the assessee finds support from

ITO, WD-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE GURU REALTORS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey

50C. However, the provisions of section 43CA having been introduced in the Statute only w.e.f. Assessment Year 2014-15, the same were not applicable to the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 and, in our opinion, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue, was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) by holding the same

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

ITO, WARD - 31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAHESH KUMAR SINGHANIA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14

1. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, illegal, perverse and bad in law. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that Section 50C of the Act did not apply to the booking rights and to treat the Sale consideration at Rs.65,00,000/ - and not at Rs.94, 14,000/-. 3. For that

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]

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs. 50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain.” 18. Applying the propositions of law laid

ALOK KUMAR CHAMRIA (HUF),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1487/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alok Kumar Chamria (Huf)…………........………………....Appellant 25E Chamria House, Shakespeare Sarani, 3Rd Floor, W.B. – 700017. [Pan: Aafha4854F] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata.….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta), Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 03.08.2017 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.12,14,280/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Refund Of Rs.26,980/- Was Issued. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Specific Details. The Assessee Submitted Responses & Uploaded Documents Periodically. During The Scrutiny Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Declared Long-Term Capital Gain (‘Ltcg’) From The Sale Of Immovable Property. The Assessing Officer Noted That Sale Consideration For Seven Flats As Per Sale Deed Was Lower Than The Stamp Duty Value. He Invoked

1) of the Act were issued requiring the assessee to furnish specific details. The assessee submitted responses and uploaded documents periodically. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had declared long-term capital gain (‘LTCG’) from the sale of immovable property. The Assessing Officer noted that sale consideration for seven flats as per sale deed

SHRI AMITABHA CHAUDHURI,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR (WEST BENTAL), DURGAPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2041/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02) Shri Amitabha Chaudhuri Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur 2D-401, “Avishikta 1”, 369/1, Purbachal Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdpc1857E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 01/01/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

50C(2) on o7/12/2009 for another Rs.3535896 identical Flat in the same Building, sold in May, 2005 – found credible by Hon. ITAT, Mumbai. Declared sale price of the Flat sold by assessee in March, 2006.- held by Rs.3920000 Hon. ITAT, Mumbai as acceptable for computation of assessee's LTCG. Table #1 Comparative Statement of the assessee's share in different