D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

56(2)(vii) of the Act. He subm the taxability of the compensation u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He submits that the averments of its that the averments of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views

RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. He argues that both the Sections cannot be clubbed and the computation methodology has no sanction of law computation methodology has no sanction of law. He also contended that both the . He also contended that both the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) have not specified the provision

GAURAV VINIMAY 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 ITA No.: 2306/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Vinimay

NEWAGE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), 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

ALOKE RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(INTT.TAXATION), CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price at which the transfer took place Admittedly, this is a rebuttable presumption but nonetheless reflects market realities.” 7. According to the ld. AR after having perusal of valuer’s report, the AO made addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- in respect of LTCG. Therefore according to ld. AR AO’s order cannot be held to erroneous or prejudicial

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

ITO, WARD - 31(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SMT. SANCHETA ADHIKARY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act which applied to cases of inadequate consideration has come into force from AY 2014-15 i.e. with effect from 01.04.2014 and hence was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Therefore, the assessee submitted that no addition could be made applying this provision of law. After

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

RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

VII of the Finance Act, 2013; (ii) “eligible transaction” means any transaction, Act, 2013; (ii) “eligible transaction” means any transaction, Act, 2013; (ii) “eligible transaction” means any transaction,- (A)carried out electronically on screen (A)carried out electronically on screen-based systems through based systems through member or an intermediary, registered under the bye member or an intermediary, registered under

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

ASG LEATHER PVT. LTD., ,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

price of Rs.312.50 per share at which the shares were issued, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(viib) was not sustainable. The assessee also filed such computation of the valuation of its shares along with the valuation report of the Registered Valuer showing the fair market value of fixed assets. 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals

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

VIJAY KUMAR BAGARIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 31(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, we find that in case the date of agreement fixing amount for consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the actual date of registration of the property are not the same, then the stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of the valuation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

transfer of a capital asset situate in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India, the Explanation 1 below it mentions that for the purposes of this Clause, in the case of a non-resident, no income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India to him through or from operations which are confined to the purchase

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

transfer of a capital asset situate in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India, the Explanation 1 below it mentions that for the purposes of this Clause, in the case of a non-resident, no income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India to him through or from operations which are confined to the purchase