DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 50C are not applicable in the present case. It placed reliance on several judicial precedents including decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 68 (Bom) and of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs. Tejender Singh

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

RITZ SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

2 I.T.A. No. 1945/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ritz Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. assessee produced a calculation of capital gain and stated that in view of the fact that only the leasehold right in land has been transferred and it is not a transfer of land or building or both, the case of the assessee does not fall under the purview

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is into the construction business. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that during the year certain flats have been sold by the assessee. Though the assessee was asked to explain the reason for the said difference, but in absence of proper reply, the ld. Assessing Officer

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, 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

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 - 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

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 the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the booking rights was held for more than 36 months hence the same is to be considered as long term capital asset

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)

2 3 Amar Das A.Yr.2012-13 The assessee treated the receipt of advance against the sale of land from the aforementioned persons in the sum of Rs. 9,30,000/- as a liability in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2012 since the registration of sale deed did not happen before the end of 31.03.2012. The ld. AO analyzed

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,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

SRI ASHISH AGARWAL,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

68,088/- offered by the assessee. Secondly, the CIT-A erred in not referring the issue to DVO as required U/Sec. 50C(2) of the Act. 3. The ld. AR submits that the AO without considering the facts to the effect that the said property is part of stock-in-trade computed the capital gain at Rs.11

UMESH PRASAD SHAW ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1943/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Umesh Prasad Shaw…………………………..…..………………………………………….…….……...Appellant C/O. D.J. Shaw & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Adyps 6806 M] I.T.O. Ward-48(3), Kolkata………………………………………...……..……………………..…. Respondent Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Tauheed, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 23Rd, 2018 O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap :-

68,540/-. As per the information received by the AO, the assessee had purchased a flat for a total consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- during the year under consideration and the registration of the same was done on 12/02/2014. As per the valuation made for the purpose of stamp duty, the value of the said property as on 12/02/2014

TAPAN KAYAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-63(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

68,960/-. As noticed by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had purchased an immovable property jointly with his wife on 07.01.2014 for a consideration of Rs.24,00,000/-. Since the market value of the said property was determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority at Rs.40,88,338/-, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions

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]

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 u/s 14A Rs. 14,655/- iii) Disallowance on account of mis-match in AIR data Rs. 7,21,400/- 3. Aggrieved

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

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