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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

56 ITR 198 (SC). Section 2(22) starts with the words" Dividend includes " Thus, the definition of dividend is inclusive and not exhaustive. 9.5 Section 2(22)(e) reads as any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

56 ITR 198 (SC). Section 2(22) starts with the words" Dividend includes " Thus, the definition of dividend is inclusive and not exhaustive. 9.5 Section 2(22)(e) reads as any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

56 ITR 198 (SC). Section 2(22) starts with the words" Dividend includes " Thus, the definition of dividend is inclusive and not exhaustive. 9.5 Section 2(22)(e) reads as any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company

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

TDS on a payment made for acquiring a Joka Project.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the demerger scheme was compliant with Section 2(19AA) and Section 47(vi) of the Act, and thus the addition under Section 56(2)(x

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

56(2)(x) of the Act cannot be made for the previous year relevant to assessment year 2018-19 as the purchase/sale/transfer of the said rice mill took place in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2017- 18 and not in the assessment year 2018-19 ? b. Whether Ld. ITAT erred in law in not appreciating that

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

section 56(2)(x)(b) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 as information gathered from system of Income Tax Portal and also submission of the Appellant which has not applied to the facts as the Appellant is a developer for constructing House Building as the Income under Business and Profession of the Appellant which has been also disclosed before

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

section 56(2)(vii) and (x) of the Income Tax Act. It emerges out that the assessee has submitted that this flat was purchased by his mother Sabita Chakrabarty, who has paid Rs.71,00,000/- and deducted TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHRADHA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1362/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

56,57,052/- as during the course of assessment the assessee failed to furnish necessary documents/explanation regarding the nature and necessity of expenses that has been incurred by it on behalf of its agency in respect of which the reimbursement is made. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

X 300 MW) along with some common facilities; As per the terms of the said contracts, the consideration to be received by the company from WBPDCL in respect of the aforesaid activities will be as under: USD 22,20,56,503 on account of offshore supply of equipment ( including spare parts, tools and tackles) outside India

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

X 300 MW) along with some common facilities; As per the terms of the said contracts, the consideration to be received by the company from WBPDCL in respect of the aforesaid activities will be as under: USD 22,20,56,503 on account of offshore supply of equipment ( including spare parts, tools and tackles) outside India

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

TDS applies only to those sums which are chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act. If the contention of the Department that any person making payment to a non-resident is necessarily required to deduct TAS then the consequence would be that the Department would be entitled to appropriate the moneys deposited by the payer even

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS: 6.1.3 Thus, on considering the totality of facts, I am inclined to concur with the view that this cannot be a case of deliberate under reporting of income on part of the appellant. Furthermore, I also note that the appellant has been consistent in offering explanation with regard to the said claim of expenditure in the course of assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

56. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) observing that the amounts represented by TDS certificate has already been booked under the head “Contracts “and his further conclusion that the disallowance made by AO seems to be unjustified, the revenue has raised ground no.3 before the Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the direction

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAMPION COMMERCIAL CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Champion P-7, Chowringhee Commercial Co. Ltd., Square, 3Rd Floor, P-15, Cit Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-73 [Pan No.Aabcc 2373 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “I. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,50,938/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Overrule The Judicial Pronouncement Of Cit Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited (1951) (191) Itr (Sc) Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.13,91,404/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The It Act, 1961. Iii. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.20,25,329/- On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The

x) read with section 36(1)(va) in the case of employees contribution and overrule the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. GRTC which was concluded after consider the ratio judgment in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. v. That on the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

56,325/- being 15% of total other expenses of Rs.23,78,169 consisting of Vehicle Hiring Charges Rs.11,86,339/-, Entertainment Rs.6,49,444/- and Petrol & Mobil Rs.5,42,386/- on estimated basis solely on the basis of suspicion and surmise to prevent revenue loss. 4. THAT on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(2), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

56,325/- being 15% of total other expenses of Rs.23,78,169 consisting of Vehicle Hiring Charges Rs.11,86,339/-, Entertainment Rs.6,49,444/- and Petrol & Mobil Rs.5,42,386/- on estimated basis solely on the basis of suspicion and surmise to prevent revenue loss. 4. THAT on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(2), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

56,325/- being 15% of total other expenses of Rs.23,78,169 consisting of Vehicle Hiring Charges Rs.11,86,339/-, Entertainment Rs.6,49,444/- and Petrol & Mobil Rs.5,42,386/- on estimated basis solely on the basis of suspicion and surmise to prevent revenue loss. 4. THAT on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC

M/S KALPANA BIRI MFG. CO. PVT. LTD.,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR- MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg. Co. Acit, Circle, बनाम / Pvt. Ltd., Vill. & P.O. Murshidabad, 39 R.N. V/S. Auragabad Dist. Tagore Road, P.O. Murshidabad, Berhampur, Pin. 742 101 Pin-742 201 [Pan No. Aabck 7051 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.L. Kochar, Advocate & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-Murshidabad U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 13.02.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Having Deleted The Addition To Income For Rs.30628425/- As Alleged Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Alleged Suppression Of Value Of Stock.”

56,16,000 58,29,120 stock stock stock stock stock Omarpur 58 pkt x 82 pkt x 62 pkt x 58 pkt x 53 pkt x 43546 37440 48000 48000 4800 31680 21,71,520 34,36,000 29,76,000 27,84,000 16,79,040 Total 6,60,72,000 Above mentioned valuation (physical) is done