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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty.] (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

transfer pricing scrutiny. We however note that the relevant provisions of Section 92BA were amended by Finance Act, 2017w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby clause (i) of sec. 92BA relating to any expenditure in respect of which payment have been made or is to be made to a person referred to clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

price of Rs.90/share and therefore even going by the logic\npropounded by NFAC, there was no undervaluation of shares and thus it could not be\nalleged that the appellant had issued inadequate value of shares in lieu of the real estate\nundertaking received under the scheme of demergerto invoke the rigors of Section\n56(2

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

transfer of leasehold interest/rights, which is in consonance with the provisions of section 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

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Price LTCG Indexation LTCG after before cost indexation indexatio n Governmen 1,20,00,00,0 1,19,83,82,4 16,17,57 2,31332838 1,11,33,28,3 t Securities 00 22 8 8 88 The LTCL of Rs.1,11,33,28,388/- was not allowed to the assessee in the assessment order passed. However, the assessee

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

50C;\n(b) \"fair market value” of a property, other than an immovable property, means the value determined\nin accordance with the method as may be prescribedº;\n(c) \"jewellery" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to sub-clause (ii) of clause\n(14) of section 2;\n(d) \"property" [means the following capital asset

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price of the flat and the value as\nper Stamp Valuation Authority. However, as a matter of fact the property was purchased\nin the earlier year as observed by us hereinabove in view of the payments being made\nin entirety in the earlier financial year and the details of payments have already\nextracted hereinabove. We note that the first payment

SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

price is an estimation neverthe- less, even if by a statutory authority like the stamp duty valuation authority, and such a valua- tion can never be elevated to the status of such a precise computation which admits no varia- tions. The rigour of Section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very thoughtfully so, to take these bonafide cases of small

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

price is an estimation nevertheless, even if by a statutory authority like the stamp duty valuation authority, and such a valuation can never be elevated to the status of such a precise computation which admits no variations. The rigour of Section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very thoughtfully so, to take these bonafide cases of small variations between

M/S KARB ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

price having location disadvantage compared to other flats in the building/project. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee, therefore, requested the A.O. that he may refer the case to the Valuation Officer (DVO) according to the provisions u/s 55A of the Act and pleaded before the A.O that invoking blindly the provisions u/s 43CA and making additions based

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

price. In support of his contention, he filed a Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 401/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asha Vijay. paperbook and placed on record six decisions. According to him, in all these decisions it has been laid down that if transfer has taken place prior to accounting year 2014-15 then Section 56(2

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

price as on that date is to be considered for the purpose of section 50C of the Act. 5.3 The submission of the assessee was not found to be tenable on the facts mentioned in the assessment order and since the contention was not tenable, the first date of transfer was treated as transfer as a whole and the market

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

price as on that date is to be considered for the purpose of section 50C of the Act. 5.3 The submission of the assessee was not found to be tenable on the facts mentioned in the assessment order and since the contention was not tenable, the first date of transfer was treated as transfer as a whole and the market

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, with these remarks, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

transfer of a capital asset being land or building or both. Both the sections induce deeming fiction to substitute actual sale consideration with notional value of asset based on Stamp Duty valuation. Further, a perusal of Circular 8 of 2018 (supra) would show that identical reasons have been given in Para 16 for ‘Rationalization of Sections 43CA and 50C

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WHITE CLIFF PROPERTIES (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

50C of the Act does not make any distinction in the transfer of capital asset being land or building or both or the right in such property. 4. The appellant craves leave to add/delete/modify the grounds of appeal.” 6. We have heard Shri Kalyan Nath, ld. Addl. CIT on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Miraj D. Shah, ld. Counsel

GAUTAM BHAKAT ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 23(2), HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Gautam Bhakat Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 4(3), Bengal Coal Lane, Ward-23(2), Aayakar V/S. Sheoraphuli, Bhawan, Khadina Hooghly-712223 More, G.T. Road, [Pan No.Ahqpb 1821R] Hooghly-712101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dilip Kumar Mitra, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-09-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed In Case No.Cita-6, Kolkat-6/10144/16-17 Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Us 50(2)(Vii) Addition Of ₹6,62,962/- In Assessment Order Dated 18.08.2016 Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. I Notice At The Outset That The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Qua The Above Sole Issue Reads As Follows:- “3. The Appellant Submitted Written Submission, Which Is Reproduced As Under:- ‘Only Ground Of Appeal Is Against Addition Made By The Learned Ao Of Rs.6,60,962.00 U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Act. Registration Set Forth Share Of Market Share Of Difference No. & Date Value (Value Your Value Your As Per Assessee Assessee Conveyance Deeds) 00369/2014 5,00,000/- 1,00,00 15,28,586/- 3,05,717/- 2,05,717/- (1/5Th) (1/5Th) 18.1.2014 00400/2014 5,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 15,28,586/- 3,05,717/- 2,05,717/- (1/5Th) (1/5Th) 18.1.2014

transfer of immovable property by executing conveyance deed duly registered by a competent authority. It is important to note that provision of section 56(2)(vii) applicable in case of transferee of immovable property covers only Individual or HUF, whereas provisions of section 50C/43CA applicable to the transferor of the property cover all the assessee. It implies that

TRINCAS VINIMAY (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

price could not be ascertained for the two flats based on the affidavits and that the right to transfer the flat had been transferred without any agreement/ registration is in contradiction to this earlier observation in the assessment order itself wherein he acknowledges receiving and scrutinizing books of accounts and other details. The respective affidavits and transfer endorsements were diligently

BOC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section