SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

142(1) of the Act dated 15.02.2017 to furnish the following details: a. Copies of sale deed and purchase deed in relation to transaction made in the year b. Computation sheet c. Capital gains calculation d. Supporting & working for Deduction under the head Capital gains e. All Bank statements 8. The assessee attended the hearings before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer

INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

iii) income from property; (iv) profits and gains of business, profession or vocation; (v) income from other sources; and (vi) capital gains. The scheme of the Act is that income-tax is one tax. Section 6 only classifies the taxable income under different heads for the purpose of computation of the net income of the assessee. Though for the purpose

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]

142(1) and asked for various details and explanations in regard to the fresh assessment to be made. The assessee duly submitted all the relevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer and also those which were considered to be necessary for the purposes of fresh assessment before the Assessing Officer.The assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s. Navin

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]

142(1) and asked for various details and explanations in regard to the fresh assessment to be made. The assessee duly submitted all the relevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer and also those which were considered to be necessary for the purposes of fresh assessment before the Assessing Officer.The assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s. Navin

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]

142(1) and asked for various details and explanations in regard to the fresh assessment to be made. The assessee duly submitted all the relevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer and also those which were considered to be necessary for the purposes of fresh assessment before the Assessing Officer.The assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s. Navin

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]

142(1) and asked for various details and explanations in regard to the fresh assessment to be made. The assessee duly submitted all the relevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer and also those which were considered to be necessary for the purposes of fresh assessment before the Assessing Officer.The assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s. Navin

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]

142(1) and asked for various details and explanations in regard to the fresh assessment to be made. The assessee duly submitted all the relevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer and also those which were considered to be necessary for the purposes of fresh assessment before the Assessing Officer.The assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s. Navin

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

142 taxmann.com 146 (Kol-Trib.). He has submitted that in the light of the propositions laid down in the said case laws, since the interest component does not form part of the tax and the same being compensatory in nature, is an allowable deduction as business expenditure in computation of taxable income. He has further submitted that even otherwise

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Act along with\nquestionnaire were issued and served to the assessee. The reason\nfor selection in scrutiny in this case was large deduction claimed\nu/s 54F of the Act. The assessee during the year had sold\n36,00,000 shares of Emami Ltd. on 13.07.2020at total sale\nconsideration of Rs. 33,77,64,511/- resulting

EMAMI INDRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

142(1) of the Act were issued. In response, the AR representing the assessee appeared and furnished requisite details and explanation in support of its claim. The AO determined the total income of the 1 assessee at Rs.29,99,30,657/- as against the Rs.88,79,544/- vide his order

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.”

142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued to assessee, in response to the same, the ld. AR appeared and submitted balance sheet, profit and loss account and the details as requisitioned in notice. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has realized capital gain of Rs. 2,15,90,819/-. The calculation

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitione the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to r did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of income cannot be attributed to such failure. This make the return, the escapement

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitione the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to r did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of income cannot be attributed to such failure. This make the return, the escapement

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

iii) & 6(d)(e) of his order rather supported the assessee's case. The conduct of the assessee and the manner in which the assessee dealt with the shares as stock in trade and as investment clearly established the distinction between the two. Even after applying the principles propounded by the A.O. himself I find I.T.A. No. 1790/KOL./2008 Assessment

RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

142(1) of the Act dated 28.12.2020. Various relevant pages in the paper book were pointed out in this regard. 2.5. The Ld. AR concluded his arguments by stating that a full and correct disclosure of facts pertaining to all the three impugned issues was duly made before the Ld. AO and in light of this there was no reason

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

iii)raised by the revenue is dismissed. 19. As far as ground no.(iv) raised by the revenue is concerned the facts are that on perusal of Col.21 of the Tax Audit Report, the AO noticed that the assessee failed to pay import duty of Rs.31,90,837/- and service tax of Rs.20,600/- before the due date of furnishing

ALOKE RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(INTT.TAXATION), CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Act dated 21.09.2016 & 03.11.2017 were issued to the assessee. In response to that the AR of the assessee appeared and produced / filed details and documents in support of the return of income filed by the assessee. During the assessment year in question, the assessee had sold a property. The proceeds from sale of residential property

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

142(1) were issued and served on the assessee company and finally assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making various disallowances in the said order. The AO has assessed total income of the assessee of Rs. 21,37,16,635/- as per Book Profit u/s 115JB raising demand of Rs. 429,970/- in the order