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]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

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]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

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]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

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]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

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]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

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]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

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

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

2) of Income Tax Act deals with the cases where a capital asset is converted into stock in trade. Whenever a capital asset is converted into stock in trade by an assessee it is deemed as transfer of capital asset and attracts capital gain provisions, in spite of the fact that the ownership of such capital asset doesn't change

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

11,42,424 Expenditure in relation to income not includible in total 30,98,586 income Less: Expenditure already disallowed by appellant (3,29,338) Expenditure to be disallowed 27,69,248 36. Therefore the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is calculated at Rs:30,98,586/-. The appellant itself has disallowed an amount of Rs.3

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

11,42,424 Expenditure in relation to income not includible in total 30,98,586 income Less: Expenditure already disallowed by appellant (3,29,338) Expenditure to be disallowed 27,69,248 36. Therefore the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is calculated at Rs:30,98,586/-. The appellant itself has disallowed an amount of Rs.3

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

11. The Assessment Years involved in the present batch of appeals are Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011¬2012. The bone of contention is that the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act is now claimed by the respondent assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2

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

11. The Assessment Years involved in the present batch of appeals are Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011¬2012. The bone of contention is that the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act is now claimed by the respondent assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

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)

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either