ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

gain in lieu of brokerage commission. We have also perused reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act by the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of DDIT Kolkata report and find that the reasons were recorded very vague manner, are full of infirmities and non application of mind. We note that the AO has recorded

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

gain in lieu of brokerage commission. We have also perused reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act by the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of DDIT Kolkata report and find that the reasons were recorded very vague manner, are full of infirmities and non application of mind. We note that the AO has recorded

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

capital gains amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO erred in not allowing deduction of u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Page

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

capital gains amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO erred in not allowing deduction of u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Page

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 7) For that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 7) For that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and not all overhead\nexpenses/common expenses are allowable in the said head. He\nfurther pleaded that income from investment (even debt mutual\nfund) is exempt in nature and where there is no exempt income\nearned, there cannot be any disallowance under section 14A. The\nld. Counsel heavily relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Calcutta\nHigh Court

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

138 taxmann.com 532) (Pune - Trib.) and vi) ITAT, Mumbai, in the recent case of Ashok Tower “D” Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs ITO (2024) (161 taxmann.com 518 (Mumbai - Trib.) 3.5 Thereafter he has held as under: “11.8 I have carefully considered the case laws relied upon by the AO. The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Totgars

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

138 taxmann.com 532) (Pune - Trib.) and vi) ITAT, Mumbai, in the recent case of Ashok Tower “D” Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs ITO (2024) (161 taxmann.com 518 (Mumbai - Trib.) 3.5 Thereafter he has held as under: “11.8 I have carefully considered the case laws relied upon by the AO. The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Totgars

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 148 of the Act. In the course of the appeal, the assessee has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Delilah Raj Mansukhani Vs. ITO in ITA No. 3526/MUM/2017 vide order dated 29th January, 2021, in which the compensation amount received for alternative accommodation has been held to be a receipt

AIROVIENT FANS & SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

capital gain’. At the assessment stage, a disallowance of Rs. 2,59,97,824/- was made u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') on the finding that the assessee had failed to submit documentary evidences to confirm the genuineness of expenditure booked. It is recorded by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

SMT.SUSHMA TANDON,DELHI vs. ITO,WD- 45(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

capital gain and other sources at Rs.4,04,950/- declared in the return for Assessment Year 2003-04 filed on 30/07/2003. Thereafter, assessment proceedings were carried out u/s 143(3)(ii) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and income assessed at Rs.27,55,950/- vide order dt. 30/12/2010. Penalty proceedings were initiated and notice u/s 274 was issued on 30/12/2010 followed

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

138 taxmann.com 44 (Delhi High Court) 11 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 TDK India Private Limited 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee finally prayed that, in view of the above submission, more particularly in view of the judgement rendered by the Jurisdictional Tribunal, that

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

138 taxmann.com 44 (Delhi High Court) 11 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 TDK India Private Limited 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee finally prayed that, in view of the above submission, more particularly in view of the judgement rendered by the Jurisdictional Tribunal, that

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

138 taxmann.com 44 (Delhi High Court) 11 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 TDK India Private Limited 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee finally prayed that, in view of the above submission, more particularly in view of the judgement rendered by the Jurisdictional Tribunal, that

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

138 taxmann.com 44 (Delhi High Court) 11 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 TDK India Private Limited 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee finally prayed that, in view of the above submission, more particularly in view of the judgement rendered by the Jurisdictional Tribunal, that

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

138 taxmann.com 44 (Delhi High Court) 11 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 TDK India Private Limited 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee finally prayed that, in view of the above submission, more particularly in view of the judgement rendered by the Jurisdictional Tribunal, that

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

138 taxmann.com 44 (Delhi High Court) 11 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 TDK India Private Limited 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee finally prayed that, in view of the above submission, more particularly in view of the judgement rendered by the Jurisdictional Tribunal, that