THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY

house property”. The reasons in support of this decision were sought to be advanced in paragraph 5 of the tribunal’s order which is set out below:- “5. The law in this regard has been recently laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club v/s. CIT 350 ITR 509 (SC), where the question

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2 vs. M/S. EXPERT JEWELLERS PVT LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

house property”. The reasons in support of this decision were sought to be advanced in paragraph 5 of the tribunal’s order which is set out below:- “5. The law in this regard has been recently laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club v/s. CIT 350 ITR 509 (SC), where the question

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

property or any of its assets including additions, renovations or refurbishings made hereafter, ELEL shall be entitled to call upon ITC to purchase the Hotel at or the mutually agreed price of Rs.15 lakhs per room irrespective of its use or Rs.75 crores whichever is higher and upon ELEL exercising such option under written intimation to ITC, ITC shall Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHELTER PROJECT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4, KOLKATA VS. M/S. SHELTER PROJECT LTD. For the appellant: Mr. S. N. Dutta, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. For the respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sourav Chunder, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Heard on : 04.02.2022 Judgment on :04.02.2022 Re: IA NO: GA 1 OF 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.: Heard Mr. S. N. Dutta duly assisted

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 12th March, 2021 held the same to be income from house property. The assessment order was challenged by filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15 [CIT(A)]. The appeal was allowed by order dated 28th April, 2017. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has preferred appeal before

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -II, KOLKATA vs. ASHOK KUMAR PODDAR

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY

property and as such the additions made by the assessing officer treating on the ground of there being undisclosed income of the assessee were not justified. While doing so 11 the Tribunal glossed over the facts that the CIT(A) had reached such a surprising finding after disbelieving the assessee’s. Contentions as would be evident from pages

M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA

The appeal is Allowed to

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Housing Finance is sufficient to bring them within the ambit of the definition of "Public Authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. 2005.” In view of above we find that the interest expenses claimed by the assessee to the LIC Mutual Fünd are covered under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Accordingly

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOL - III, KOL vs. M/S. MEENAKSHI TEA CO. LTD

Appeal is dismissed”

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

section 73 were specifically discussed with the A/R. From the details submitted by the A/R, it has emerged that the assessee has no income under the heads ‘interest on 4 securities’, ‘income from other sources’ and ‘income from house property

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S EMPORIS PROPERTIES PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th March, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. S. Gupta, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd September, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In

PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 30th March, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...for the appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. S. Gupta, Adv. ...for the respondent. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision of this Court in Harsh Vardhan Lodha

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision of this Court in Harsh Vardhan Lodha

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision of this Court in Harsh Vardhan Lodha

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J.J.EXPORTERS LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision of this Court in Harsh Vardhan Lodha

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. L D S CITY PROJECTS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision of this Court in Harsh Vardhan Lodha

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision of this Court in Harsh Vardhan Lodha

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision of this Court in Harsh Vardhan Lodha

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS COMPANY (1978) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision of this Court in Harsh Vardhan Lodha

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision of this Court in Harsh Vardhan Lodha