TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

gain, the provision of Section 50C would be applicable. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the action of the AO of not referring the matter to the DVO. Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (f) The Ld. CIT(A) held that the acceptable variation range of (+/-) 15% does not exist within

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

gain, the provision of Section 50C would be applicable. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the action of the AO of not referring the matter to the DVO. Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (f) The Ld. CIT(A) held that the acceptable variation range of (+/-) 15% does not exist within

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

119, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation

SHRI BUDHRAJ AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(6) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the legal issue as well as on merit

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Capital Gain were raised in course of the assessment proceedings against which the appellant filed evidences in support of the transactions as well as the genuineness of the company (which is a profit making dividend paying company) and report of analyst in support of rise in prices of the shares. 5. For that the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

gains made by the Ld. A.O. on the sale of the aforesaid properties has no legal sanctity and is liable to be quashed, it was so submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the grounds

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 10(38) of the Act? ( Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in b deleting the addition of undisclosed income ignoring the larger scam of ) organized tax evasion by way of bogus capital gain generated in penny stock? ( Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in c taken only one lead case

M/S TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKAA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital work-in progress solely on the assumption that there existed separate earmarked- funds and the assessee had used those instead of non- earmarked funds or general income. 2.4. The Ld. CIT(E) grossly erred in directing the AO to make an addition of INR 169.03 Lacs in the nature of waiver of treatment charges. 2.5. That

WINSHER COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 14(2), PRESENTLY D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATAKOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 668/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Winsher Commercial Pvt. Limited,…....….Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aaacw3125H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………………Respondent Ward-14(2), Kolkata, [Presently Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata], Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 O R D E R

capital gain and claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Such gains 2 Winsher Commercial Pvt. Limited were manipulated by entry operators. Copy of the show-cause notice has been reproduced by the ld. Assessing Officer on page no. 1 of the assessment order. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter reproduced the information given

SREELEATHERS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

119 of the Act\nclarifies that Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act provides for\ndisallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a\nparticular year has not earned any exempt income. The ld.\nCIT(Appeals) also mentioned that the Board clarified that the usage\nof term 'includible' in the heading to section

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

119 (Del) (A. Y. 1999-\n2000)\ng. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [2008] 118 TTJ 228 (Delhi)\nh. ACIT v. Eicher Ltd. [(2006) 101 TTJ 369 (Del)]\ni. Impulse (India) (P) Ltd v. ACIT[(2008) 22 SOT 368 (Del)]\n7.7 It is also submitted that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can\nbe made as the Apex Charges from

SUBODH ADHIKARY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 51(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 292 BB of the Act cannot save the infirmity arising from infraction of CBDT Instructions dealing with the subject of scrutiny assessments where assessment has been framed in direct conflict with the guidelines issued by the CBDT. 6.7 Therefore, on an overall view of the factual matrix as well assettled judicial position, we are of the considered opinion that

BASTUHARA SAHAYATA SAMITI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

gained in any manner whatsoever by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation and was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). The assessee was not negligent in filing the appeal but for some unavoidable reasons and circumstances, no step was possible to be taken for filing

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under