RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

III of the Income Act which is titled as “income which do not form part of the total income”. The Ld. A.R stated that if the provisions of Section 10(38) are carefully analyzed then it is amply clear that specific specie of receipt to which exemption from tax is granted subject to fulfillment of certain condition. Accordingly Section 10

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of Page 33 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of Page 33 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

gains of business or profession”. The underlying idea behind s. 28(iii) is that there must be a business from which income is derived and that in the course of such business specific services must be rendered for its members. The concept behind s.28(iii) is to cut at the mutuality principle being relied on in support of a claim

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

gains of business or profession”. The underlying idea behind s. 28(iii) is that there must be a business from which income is derived and that in the course of such business specific services must be rendered for its members. The concept behind s.28(iii) is to cut at the mutuality principle being relied on in support of a claim

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

gains of business or profession”. The underlying idea behind s. 28(iii) is that there must be a business from which income is derived and that in the course of such business specific services must be rendered for its members. The concept behind s.28(iii) is to cut at the mutuality principle being relied on in support of a claim

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIA FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),EXEMPT, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

gains of business or profession”. The underlying idea behind s. 28(iii) is that there must be a business from which income is derived and that in the course of such business specific services must be rendered for its members. The concept behind s.28(iii) is to cut at the mutuality principle being relied on in support of a claim

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), EXEMPTION , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

gains of business or profession”. The underlying idea behind s. 28(iii) is that there must be a business from which income is derived and that in the course of such business specific services must be rendered for its members. The concept behind s.28(iii) is to cut at the mutuality principle being relied on in support of a claim

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

gains of business or profession”. The underlying idea behind s. 28(iii) is that there must be a business from which income is derived and that in the course of such business specific services must be rendered for its members. The concept behind s.28(iii) is to cut at the mutuality principle being relied on in support of a claim

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10. The Ld CIT(A) also held that the cost should be taken at Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the property and determine the capital gains on the amount received on sale of property as sold by the developer during the year for Rs. 1,65,84,710/- 13. The department is in appeal against the deletion made

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10. The Ld CIT(A) also held that the cost should be taken at Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the property and determine the capital gains on the amount received on sale of property as sold by the developer during the year for Rs. 1,65,84,710/- 13. The department is in appeal against the deletion made

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

10 Shuvro Chattaraj, AY: 2015-16 arose in the AY 2013-14 only is incorrect. Further, submission in this regard are as under: a. “He failed to consider that the assessee had entered into two different development agreements dated 03.11.2011 (AY 2013-14) and 26.09.2014 (AY. Thus, the observation that the Capital gain aroused in AY 2013-14 only

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

10. At the first blush, this argument seems attractive. However, when we read sub- section (2) further, certain complications arise in this line of argument. The first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB provides that while preparing annual accounts including profit and loss account the accounting policies and accounting standards adopted for preparing the account and the method

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) Regarding the receipts of Rs.2,99,133/-, added u/s 68 of the Act,\nrepresenting allegedly off-market transactions, in commodities, the\nfollowing finding of Ld. CIT(A) is relevant in this regard:\n\n“I have considered the online submission made by the appellant and relied upon\ndecisions carefully. What is important and relevant is appellant's first reaction

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

section 10(38) of I.T. Act 1961 for long term capital gain of Rs. 68,87,029/- earned by your appellant on sale of 26000 shares of NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. (3) Ld. Income Tax Officer has erred in law as well in fact in denying conclusion on transaction of so called penny stocks without providing to your appellant

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

section 10(38) of I.T. Act 1961 for long term capital gain of Rs. 68,87,029/- earned by your appellant on sale of 26000 shares of NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. (3) Ld. Income Tax Officer has erred in law as well in fact in denying conclusion on transaction of so called penny stocks without providing to your appellant

RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

iii) of the Instruction dated 02.05.2016 (supra) and thereby the matter was covered under explanation 2(a) to section 263(1) of the Act. 4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the documents before us with the help of both Ld. AR/DR. The primary issue that needs to be decided is whether the issues covered

SRI GOVINDDEO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD-1(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)

iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has substantially erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee and holding that the assessee is eligible for exemption claimed under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the said Act despite the fact that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions for being eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the said