DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

68,082/-, which represented adjustment of lease premium of Rs. 81,650/-, rent of Rs. 3,26,600/- and excess usance charge of Rs. 59,832/- paid by the assessee to MIADB during the lease period. The ld. AO noticed that the appellant had computed LTCG on sale of part of the land by taking cost of acquisition

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: the AO all the evidences qua these unsecured loans such as names, addresses, PANs, audited accounts, confirmations etc. The also AO issued letters to all the loan creditors u/s 133(6) of the Act which were all replied by the loan creditors by furnishing all the details such as copies of the ITRs, audited balance sheets, bank statements, loan confirmation etc. as called for by the AO. However, the AO, by making casual remarks about money laundering and rejecting all the evidences, treated th

53A, Tiljala Road, 3rd Floor, Kolkata - 700046 [PAN: AABCM6765C] …..…...…………….... Appellant vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 ……..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : S.K. Pransukha, AR Department represented by : Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 25.02.2026 Date of pronouncing the order

MESCAB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

53A, Tiljala Road, 3rd Floor, Kolkata - 700046 [PAN: AABCM6765C] …..…...…………….... Appellant vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 ……..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : S.K. Pransukha, AR Department represented by : Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 25.02.2026 Date of pronouncing the order

ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. NALINI BOTHRA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1405/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Nalini Bothra. [Pan: Adrpb 5103 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act’. So in terms of provisions of section 2(47) of the Act, he held that property was acquired by the assessee only on 13.5.2013 and the said property was transferred on 10.9.2013. Since the property was an immovable property which was held by the assessee only for 4 months under her possession

I.T.O WD - 36(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE KRISHNA DEVELOPERS, KOLKATA

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S. Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Vs Ito, M/S. Shree Krishna Developers, Ward-36(2), 78, Bentinck Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaaas9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Vs Ito, Shree Krishna Developers, Ward-36(2), 133, Canning Street, Kolkata. ‘Chopra House’, Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaaas9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Dr Respondent By Sh.D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing 18.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2018 Order

68,19,865/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB(10) in the assessment completed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act vide an order dated 29.12.2011. 5. Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3)/147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well

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

ITO, WARD-31(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. NAMITA CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). “ 4. The AO referred to the question of valuation of the share of the property which the assessee was to receive from the developer to the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) in terms of section 55A of the Act. The DVO in his valuation report gave the following

STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2004-05 Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd. -Versus- C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaecs 0445G) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

68,800 already paid by the assessee as per the terms of the deed of assignment. In the sale deed, certain conditions were also imposed upon the assessee. One of the conditions was that the purchaser shall not 4 Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. A.Yr.2004-05 the transfer, sell or mortgage the property or change ownership/constitution/partners/shareholders or directors within

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)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On this date only an inchoate right was available to the buyer to either force specific performance or claim compensation or even cancel the agreement. Banabir Dasgupta Assessment Year:2003-04 Later on, Court reverses and success in appeal led to registration of the said property in the hands

M/S DV RE-ROLLING MILLS PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal 3 DV Re-Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the said addition. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a paper book containing 110 pages to demonstrate

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]

68 is self-contradictory, unjustified, without jurisdiction and bad in law and hence, the same is liable to be deleted and consequently, the impugned order is liable to be cancelled. 3. First of all, we would like to decide the issues raised in ground no. 1, 4& 5 as stated above. Vide ground no. 1, the assessee has prayed before