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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

transfer under clause (via) or clause (vic) or clause (vich) or clause (vid) or clause (vii) of\nsection 47.\n\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “fair market value” of a property, being shares of a\ncompany not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, shall have the\nmeaning assigned to it in the Explanation

MADHUR COAL MINING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

price lower than the fair market value of shares which practice the section wanted to plug. 8.5.8 In Sudhir Memon HUF v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 176, Hon'ble Mumbai tribunal has interpreted the word “Receive” used under section 56 (2) (viia) and held that 'Receipt' is a word or term of wide import and would include the acquisition

SMT. SHASHI JAIN,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-15, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

transfer of such immovable property.” 7.2. From the above, we note that section 56(2)(vii) was originally introduced in the statute book w.e.f. 01.10.2009 which was not in existence when the impugned agreement to purchase the property was executed i.e. on 30.01.2008. Thus, Section 56(2)(vii) came into existence after the execution of agreement to purchase of property

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

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

vii) as income from other sources. iii) That the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming Rs. 6,31,000/- as unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act despite the said amount having already been considered in the total income of the appellant, and further erred in upholding the application of section 115BBE

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

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)(vii

ACIT, CIR.-3(2), GANGTOK vs. M/S RODIC SIKKIM PROJECT PVT. LTD, EAST SIKKIM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Rodic Sikkim Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Nagar, Singtam Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Gangtok East Sikkim - 737134 (Pan: Aahcr1752J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)- Siliguri Vide Appeal No. – 62/Cit(A)/Slg/2017-18 Dated 24/09/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Circle – 3(2), Gangtok, Dated 30/12/2017. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under:-

vii)(b) and Rule 11UA are not applicable in the case of the assessee whereas the facts and circumstances shows that the said provisions of the Act and Rules are applicable in the case of the assessee. 5. That the applicant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal, if any.” 3. From the perusal

PARTHA PRATIM CHAKRABARTY,BANKURA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1520/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Partha Pratim Chakrabarty,……..……….……Appellant Katjuridanga, P.O. Kenduadihi, Dist. Bankura-722102, West Bengal [Pan:Acepc4256E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-3(1), Bankura, Income Tax Office, Kenduadihi, P.O. Kenduadihi, Dist. Bankura-722102 Appearances By: Shri D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Bonnine Debbarma, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 09, 2024 O R D E R

price paid by an assessee is less than the value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authorities for the purpose of charging Stamp Duty, then, such value will be deemed as an actual consideration paid by the assessee. The difference between two will be added as a deemed gift in the hands of the purchaser, i.e. the assessee

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

vii) CIT v Govindram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.). 4. The contention of the assessee for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal is that Scheme of the Income Tax Act contemplates that under section 144C of the income Tax Act, the ld. Assessing Officer was required to first prepare a draft assessment order and such draft

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

SIMAL PRASAD (ALIAS BIMAL PRASAD),DARJEELING vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.169/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Simal Prasad…………......………..…................…..........….…… Appellant Hermitage, Holmden Road, Dist-Darjeeling, W.B - 734101. [Pan: Cpfpp6187R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Darjeeling.......……........….........…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subrata Singh, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 17, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’ 2. The Sole Issue Involved, In This Appeal, Is Relating To The Value Of The Property Purchased By The Assessee Vide Registered Deed Dated 24.07.2014. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee As Per The Said Deed Has Paid Only A Sum Of Rs.5,42,500/-, Whereas, The Market Value Of The Property Was At Rs.15,70,800/-. He, Therefore, Invoked The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) & Added The Difference Of The Consideration Mentioned In The Sale Deed As Compared To The Market Value As Undisclosed Sale Consideration Of The Property.

section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not attracted. That in fact the assessee was already in possession of the shop in question as the father of the assessee was running a dental clinic there. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied on the certificate of enlistment issued by Darjeeling Municipality for the year 2011-12, whereby, Mr. Bimal Prasad

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:-

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Division Bench observed thus: "3. Regarding question No. (i): ** ** ** (f) It is self evident from reading of section 50C of the Act it would not have any application while determining 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. This is so as its application is only limited to computation of income chargeable

SUBODH ADHIKARY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 51(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, in Ground No. 4 and Rs. 2,84,88,545/-, in Ground No. 5 and 6 in respect of unexplained investment are concerned, the same were without jurisdiction as the AO has no authority under the Act to initiate the enquiry and call for record/explanation from the assessee on that date when

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

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Division Bench observed thus: "3. Regarding question No. (i): ** ** ** (f) It is self evident from reading of section 50C of the Act it would not have any application while determining 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. This is so as its application is only limited to computation of income chargeable

M/S SWIFT VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1I, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

transferred through cheque to one of the companies of the operator. After that the cheque is routed through a maze of own companies and finally given as share capital by cheque to the beneficiary company. This is a typical one time entry transaction. Alternatively, the beneficiary can buy a company in which case, the share holders change, the fictitious investments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. DHUNSERI VENTURES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

56,410/- being interest free and monthly subscription for clubs at Rs. 1,65,422/- being cost of service and facility provided at the club. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the ground of being personal in nature and not related to the business of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before

M/S. BANKURA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OPETATIVE BANK LTD. ,BANKURA vs. DCIT, CIR-3, BANKURA. , BANKURA

In the result, ITA No. 1479/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

56,568/- in relation to disallowing the provision on NPAs. The aggrieved assessee filed Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 1479/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Bankura District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) passed the exparte order and upheld the order of the AO. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal