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]

c ) Fees for Certificate of origin Facts relating to these activities are discussed in detail in para 23 to 25 of this order above, which need not be repeated. 36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11

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]

c ) Fees for Certificate of origin Facts relating to these activities are discussed in detail in para 23 to 25 of this order above, which need not be repeated. 36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11

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]

c ) Fees for Certificate of origin Facts relating to these activities are discussed in detail in para 23 to 25 of this order above, which need not be repeated. 36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11

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]

c ) Fees for Certificate of origin Facts relating to these activities are discussed in detail in para 23 to 25 of this order above, which need not be repeated. 36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

c ) Fees for Certificate of origin Facts relating to these activities are discussed in detail in para 23 to 25 of this order above, which need not be repeated. 36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

c ) Fees for Certificate of origin Facts relating to these activities are discussed in detail in para 23 to 25 of this order above, which need not be repeated. 36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11

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

In the result, Ground r.w

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, has been wrongly invoked by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the provision can be invoked only when the ing Officer. He submitted that the provision can be invoked only when the ing Officer. He submitted that the provision can be invoked only when the assessee acquires property other than immovable property

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

c) M/s. St. Joseph’s Monastery, ITA No. 840.2018 AY 2013-14 7. We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the written submissions filed. In order to address the controversy, it is imperative to refer to provisions of sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) of the I. T. Act, 1961, which are reproduced as under

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

c) below sub-section (1) of section 263, which clearly provides that where any order referred to in sub-section (1) of section 263 and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal, the powers of the ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 shall extend only to such matters as had not been considered

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

c) arbitrarily without any basis or what so ever. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of case by considering the cost of acquisition at Rs. 1 crore without referring the matter to the DVO u/s 55A of the I.T. Act-1961 read with 1st proviso & 2nd proviso of section 50C(1) for determining

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

c) arbitrarily without any basis or what so ever. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of case by considering the cost of acquisition at Rs. 1 crore without referring the matter to the DVO u/s 55A of the I.T. Act-1961 read with 1st proviso & 2nd proviso of section 50C(1) for determining

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 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 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain on sale of shares of M/s. Vishal Retail Ltd. is factually incorrect. It is relevant to reproduce herein below the Explanation 1 to section 271(1) of the Act. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c): "Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act- (A) such

DCIT CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

11,51,351/- 10,15,090/- BLUE DART 154 13,259/- 1,23,508/- 1,10,248/- EI HOTEL 31488 16,44,230/- 58,22,280/- 41,78,050/- FEDERAL 22646 39,99,592/- 80,58,550/- 40,58,958/- BANK HINDSANIT

KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

11,51,351/- 10,15,090/- BLUE DART 154 13,259/- 1,23,508/- 1,10,248/- EI HOTEL 31488 16,44,230/- 58,22,280/- 41,78,050/- FEDERAL 22646 39,99,592/- 80,58,550/- 40,58,958/- BANK HINDSANIT

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

c) of Explanation). The plain reading of provisions of sec. 92B(1) of the Act indicate that the various transactions mentioned in section 92B(1) of the Act, (i.e. ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kol. Page 8 purchases, sales, provision for services, lending or borrowing or any other transaction) should have bearing

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. Because that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was erred in law as well as in facts in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in treating the short-term capital gains income of Rs. 1.21 crores on sale of share investment, as business income, and his such conclusions are based on his surmises and guesses

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. Because that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was erred in law as well as in facts in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in treating the short-term capital gains income of Rs. 1.21 crores on sale of share investment, as business income, and his such conclusions are based on his surmises and guesses

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. Because that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was erred in law as well as in facts in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in treating the short-term capital gains income of Rs. 1.21 crores on sale of share investment, as business income, and his such conclusions are based on his surmises and guesses