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

gain of Rs 7,18,74,000/- in the facts of the case. The ld AO is accordingly directed to give benefit of the same to the assessee based on the correctness of the claim of brought forward loss figure made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 5.1 & 5.2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

115 Crores. The sale consideration was payable by HDIL in instalments. There is no dispute that Long Term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.81,57,21,820 resulted on account of sale of the property at Bhandhup and the transfer of the capital asset had taken place during the previous year relevant to AY 2009-10. To claim exemption u/s.54G

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 56(2)(vii) of the that the department has conceded the ground of taxability under Section 56(2)(vii) of the that the department has conceded the ground of taxability under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 10.4. The ld. CIT D/R further submitted that the power

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Sections 54, 54F, Secs. 54 and 54F of the IT Act, 1961, provide that capital gains arising on transfer of a long term capital asset shall not be charged to tax to the extent specified therein, where the amount of capital gain is invested in a residential house. In the case of purchase of a house, the benefit is available

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

115/- as per Section 50 of the Act. Although the assessee reported such gain as short term capital gain, in the matter

WHITEPIN TIE-UP LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

Capital Gain of Rs.4,51,20,300.00 which was claimed as exempted income u/s. 10(34) & 10(38) of the Act respectively. The assessee made the disallowance of the expenses incurred in relation to such exempted income under section 14A of the Act for Rs.66,99,516.00 only. However the AO was not satisfied with the disallowance made

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WHITE CLIFF PROPERTIES (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

115] (Cal.) has held as follows: "Development agreement comes out of the scope of the ambit of section 53A of the Transfer of Properly Act. Therefore, section 53A of the TP Act, has no manner of application to a development agreement." Thus as per this decision of the Court the joint development agreement do not fall under Section

M/S TITAGARH INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY M/S BHATPARA PAPERS LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

gain realized on sale of depreciable asset and does not contain the definition of ‘Capital Asset’. Drawing attention to Section 2(14) of the Act, the Ld. AR claimed that the expression ‘capital asset’ includes within its ambit and scope property of every kind, whether moveable or immovable, real or corporeal and only excludes agricultural land, stock-in-trade, personal

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

capital gain and is liable for levy of tax at normal tax rates and not under special rate provided u/s 112 of the Act. Thus, Ground No. 4 of the revenue is allowed. 21. Ground No. 5 is general in nature. 22. Now, we take up the grounds raised in the Cross-objection No. 09/Kol/2020 filed by the assessee

UNIVERSAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

115-O. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act and subject to the provisions of this section, in addition to the income-tax chargeable in respect of the total income of a domestic company for any assessment year, any amount declared, distributed or paid by such company by way of dividends (whether interim or otherwise

BIJNI DOOARS TEA COMPANY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-2, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bijni Dooars Tea Company Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kolkata-2, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1, Kolkata. Vs. Shantiniketan, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aabcb1013E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gains as per the normal provisions of the Act.. .. there was no malafide intention of the assessee company to make such a mistake." (page 22 of the Paper Book) First of all, the AR of the assessee admits that mistakes have been made. Secondly, he also admits that particulars of DOT are part and parcel of both

BHAGWATI PRASAD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07 (Appellant ) (Respondent) Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-34(1) Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Adppa 1393 J) For The Appellant : Ms.Varsha Jalan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri D.Banerjee, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2015.. Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 270/Cit(A)-Xx/Wd-34(1)/2008-09 Dated 02.07.2012 For The Asst Year 2006-07 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

capital gains. Accordingly, the ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. The next ground of appeal to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA is justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loan received from Sri Ram Niranjan Saraogi u/s 68 of the Act. 5.1. The brief facts

EMERALD FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGLURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain. During the year, the assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 7,05,84,022/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 115BBDA of the Act and remaining dividend after claiming exemption of Rs. 10,00,000/- of Rs. 6,95,84,022/- was offered to tax. While processing return of income CPC-Bangalore treated the said

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue stands dismissed and the Cross Objection of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Dr. M. L. Meena, Hon’Ble]

gains". When the matter came up before the Select Committee, it was decided to omit the word ‘cess' from the clause. The effect of the omission of the word ‘cess' is that only taxes paid are to be disallowed in the assessments for the years 1962-63 and onwards. The Board desire that the changed position may please be brought

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AVERY (INDIA) LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.980/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-2007) Dcit, Circle-1, Kolkata, Vs. M/S Avery (India) Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, 28/2, Waterloo Street, P-7, Chowranghiee Square, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-69 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 4694 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Assessee By : Shri Manish Sheth, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xx, Kolkata, In Appeal No.85/Cit(A)-Xx/Circle-1/2011-12/Kol, Dated 16.01.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.3,88,68,115/-.The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1). Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Addition On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.65,81,000/-. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee’S Claim In Respect Of Surrender Of Tenancy Rights Is Not Accepted Because As Per M/S Avery (India) Ltd. Section 43(6) Of The Act, Written Down Value Of A Particular Block Of Assets

115/-.The return of income was processed u/s 143(1). Later on, the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny u/s.143(3) of the Act and the AO has completed the assessment by making addition on account of short term capital gain at Rs.65,81,000/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee’s claim in respect of surrender

D.C.I.T. CIR-12, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. USHA MARTIN TELEMATICS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

115 of I.T. Rules read with section 145 (2) of I.T. Act and drawing inferences with reference to accrual of income is not in agreement with the legislative intent. What is to be taxed is ‘real income’ and not the ‘notional income’ as held by judicial forums. • With regard to case laws (viz. Indian overseas Bank

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

gain. This view is further reiterated by the interpretation clause 7 appearing in Part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act. [Para 15] A capital surplus thus, in respect of waiver of loan amount cannot be regarded as amount available for distribution through the profit & loss account. This follows from the very definition of expression ‘capital reserve' that

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

gain. This view is further reiterated by the interpretation clause 7 appearing in Part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act. [Para 15] A capital surplus thus, in respect of waiver of loan amount cannot be regarded as amount available for distribution through the profit & loss account. This follows from the very definition of expression ‘capital reserve' that