SRI BASUDEB SENGUPTA,BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 3,ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 54F and the same is raised by the assessee by way of the following grounds:- (1) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that “continued expenditure out of proceeds of the part of commercial venture comprising several residential units built as stock-in- trade in the remaining part

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act ‘] dated 30.03.2015 for the Asst Year 2012-13. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in denying the benefit of deduction u/s 54 / 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances

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)

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, so the assessee’s claim of long term capital gain from transfer of such

GOUTAM GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 13, KOLKATA

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

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

price (Rs. 33,70,000/-), leading to a difference of Rs. 43,17,802/-. Through the said notice it was proposed to tax this amount u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Thereafter, the appellant is seen to have advanced a number of reasons to canvass the point that taxability of the amount worked

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer of tenancy rights will be assessed under the head capital gains on the ground that no purchase rights will be assessed under the head capital gains on the ground that no purchase rights will be assessed under the head capital gains on the ground that no purchase price was paid for the tenanc price was paid for the tenancy

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 2(47)(v) on Income Tax Act recognizes such transaction for the purpose of taxation. Therefore, the same should be treated as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG for short). The assessee further submitted that the possession of the property was first owned by the assessee dated 14th March 2005. However, the AO has taken the day of 14th March

SRI BABLU SUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

transferred to his personal balance sheet where assessee has shown business advance from Sanjay Kumar Mishra of Rs. 5,50,000/-. It appears that Mamata Saha (Sur) was not assessed to tax and did not file any return of income for Asst Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. (b) Besides the assessee enjoyed the whole sale consideration personally

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

price declared and stamp duty value. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.2,68,92,241/- u/s 54F of the Act in respect of investment made in two flats i.e. Flat No.B-12, and Flat No.11, at Kalpataru Avana, Maharashtra. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction on the ground that the assessee owned three residential units

ITO, WARD-32(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHALEEN KHEMANI,, KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1945/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-32(4), Kolkata -Vs- Shaleen Khemani [Pan: Agapk 6810 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer, the transaction has been made chargeable to Securities Transaction Tax (in short STT) as evident from the contract notes. 4.1. It was submitted that none of the replies as received by the ld AO were found irregular or incoherent with the submissions of the assessee and all the adverse inference drawn are basically figment of his mind