ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

9 are general in nature and do not require\nany separate adjudication.\n6.1 Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 relate to the Ld. CIT (A) erring in denying\nthe deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee did\nnot deposit the sale proceeds of his old property in Capital Gains\nAccount Scheme, 1988 and had kept

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 for all other provisions and is eligible for set off u/s 74 against brought forward loss from long term capital asset. 6.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Panel while confirming the action of Ld. AO grossly erred in not applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the decision

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

capital asset situated in India, shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The reply of the assessee is not tenable. In this context, the provisions of Section 195(1) of the Act may be referred and it reads as under: "Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company

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

9. In view of the above consistent principle adopted by Hon 'ble High Courts in respect to interpretation of a beneficial provision i.e. exemption provision under capital gains tax, we have to take similar approach in deciding the issue in hand i.e. the claim of assessee for exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act because this is exactly similar to section

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

9 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression 'of the nature referred to in section 53A in section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive at the opposite conclusion. This expression was used by the legislature ever since sub-section (v) was inserted by the Finance

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

9 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression 'of the nature referred to in section 53A in section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive at the opposite conclusion. This expression was used by the legislature ever since sub-section (v) was inserted by the Finance

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Capital gains") for— 6 I.T.A. No. 140/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

gains of business or profession", -- (a) in the case of any assessee -- ITA Nos.1144 & 1145/Kol/2015 Lux Industries Ltd A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 13 (i) any interest (not being interest on a loan issued for public subscription before the 1st day of April, 1938), royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act, which is payable,-- (A) outside India

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

gains of business or profession", -- (a) in the case of any assessee -- ITA Nos.1144 & 1145/Kol/2015 Lux Industries Ltd A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 13 (i) any interest (not being interest on a loan issued for public subscription before the 1st day of April, 1938), royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act, which is payable,-- (A) outside India

SMT.BARNALI DHAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Barnali Dhar Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata C/O. S.D. Verma, Advocate, 2Nd Floor, 7, Vs. Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Pan: Ajppd 6989 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 10, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 10 Was Not Justified In Not Deleting A Sum Of Rs. 9933057/- Being The Amount Wrongly Included By The Appellant Under The Head Capital Gain, While Filing Return Of Income Whereas As Per Section 54F No Amount Is Liable To Be Taxed. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Or Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal At Hearing Stage.”

9. The limited controversy revolves around determination of extent or deduction under section 54F to the assessee. As per Revenue, the AO has rightly allowed the benefit of deduction u/s 54F to the assessee to the extent of actual investment of Rs 24,60,000 in the new house property. Per contra, the contention of the assessee is that where

ACIT, CIR-I, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. MRS HARMEET KAUR, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

9,60,80,616/- as against Rs 6,00,00,000/- and after giving deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition at Rs 1,41,31,137/-, he computed long term capital gains at Rs 8,19,49,479/-. 4. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the capital gains account was opened by the assessee on 28.2.2010 which was informed

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9 months after the statutory deadline. The Id. CIT (A)\nnoted that it is a fundamentally legal principle that construction carried\nout without sanctioned plan is illegal and unauthorized. The Id. CIT (A)\nfurther noted that Act cannot be interpreted for grant of exemption for\naction which are not a legally compliant and thus, dismissed the\nappeal.\n6.\nAfter hearing

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

9, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 are liable to be revoked." In this case, the above four cardinal principles have been ignored by the department. The appellant invested in the shares of the company but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. The addition made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

9, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 are liable to be revoked." In this case, the above four cardinal principles have been ignored by the department. The appellant invested in the shares of the company but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. The addition made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

9, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 are liable to be revoked." In this case, the above four cardinal principles have been ignored by the department. The appellant invested in the shares of the company but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. The addition made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

9, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 are liable to be revoked." In this case, the above four cardinal principles have been ignored by the department. The appellant invested in the shares of the company but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. The addition made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LGW LTD., NORTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

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

139(1) of the Act. Invoking the provision of section 43B of the Act, the AO added a sum of Rs/.32,11,437/- as disallowance u/s 43B of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 20. Before CIT(A) assessee pointed out that no duty of service tax was outstanding. The assessee furnished certificate of the auditors

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9, 1977. The completion of the construction of the new building\nwas in March, 1977, although the commencement of construction started in 1976. On\nthese facts, the Karnataka High Court held that it was immaterial that the construction of\nthe new building was started before the sale of the old building. We fully agree with the\nview taken