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

Capital Gain (LTCG") on sale of both land and build- ing without appreciating that the building formed part of block of assets and hence as per provisions of Section 43(6) only 'moneys payable" in respect of such building was required to be reduced from the relevant block of assets. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

ANJU DARUKA,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1),, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

150/-.\nThereafter, statutory notices along with questionnaire were duly\nissued and served upon the assessee. The assessee also complied with\nthe said notices. Thereafter during the course of assessment\nproceedings, the Id. AO observed that the assessee has shown Long\nTerm Capital Gain from sale of 6,400/- equity shares of M/s BSR\nFinance & Construction Ltd. to the tune

OMPRAKASH DARUKA,RANIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), , ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.685/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Omprakash Daruka, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Acqpd 1122 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

section 148 of the Act after recording reason to believe u/s 148(2) of the Act by the AO. The above reopening was done after the ld. AO received information from the DIT (Investigation) Kolkata that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entries in the form Long Term Capital Gain. The reasons recorded are available at page

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 461/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Britannia Industries Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata 5/1A, Hungerford Street Vs Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata - 700017 [Pan: Aabcb2066P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kush Kanodia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Suo Moto Computed & Disallowed Sum Of Rs.14,10,610/- Which Inter Alia Included Sum Of Rs.14,19,009/- Computed In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Being 1% Of The Value Of Tax Free Investments & Therefore The Ao Had Factually Erred In Holding That The Aforesaid Voluntary Disallowance Represented Disallowance Offered By Way Of Direct Expenditure U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D(2)(I) & Thereby Wrongly Computed Further Disallowance Of Rs.13,32,000/- In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

gain by taking the value of the cost of investments sold in accordance with FIFO Method, as mandated by Section 45(2A) of the Act. 7. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified on facts and in law in denying the deduction of Rs.11.07 crores

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. JYOTI PATODIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

capital gain of Rs.38,82,090/-, which was claimed u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Finally, the AO, after discussing the modus operandi of penny stocks ,treated the entire sale consideration of Rs.41,25,150/- as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition

PRASHANT SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

150/- ). Out of the sale consideration of Rs. 27 Lakh the assessee has offered Rs. 10 Lakh as share of sale consideration. The assessee was claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The ld. AO after going over the documents filed by the assessee disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act on this ground that

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

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

150 is accounted as share premium and Rs. 100 is share capital on receipt of money from employee on allotment at the time of exercise of option. Thus, though the market price of share on the date of exercising the 5 M/s Bandhan Bank Limited: AY: 2016-17 option is much more than grant price, GRUH receives less amount, which

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

150 Rs 3,00,000 Looking at this information the natural question that comes to mind is what may be reason that this company has attracted equity capital at a premium of Rs 1990 per share considering it is doing no fundamental business being itself an investment company and earning no significant income. Furthermore, no information has been provided

M/S. DIACH CHEMICALS & PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

150/-. Thereafter, search operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 07.12.2021 on Diach Group. M/s Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt. Ltd. is a Kolkata based manufacturer and supplier of pure lead and lead alloys such as Antimonial Lead Alloy, Calcium Lead Ally, High Tin Lead Alloy, Lead Oxide, High Antimonial Lead and Lead tin Alloy. The notice

M/S. DIACH CHEMICALS & PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

150/-. Thereafter, search operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 07.12.2021 on Diach Group. M/s Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt. Ltd. is a Kolkata based manufacturer and supplier of pure lead and lead alloys such as Antimonial Lead Alloy, Calcium Lead Ally, High Tin Lead Alloy, Lead Oxide, High Antimonial Lead and Lead tin Alloy. The notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

capital gains tax. That substantial amount was invested in mutual fund investments for which there was no provision of providing any dividend. That, some of the mutual fund schemes, however, have yielded dividend income, however, the said dividend was reinvested by the assessee without being actually receiving the same. He has further submitted that the assessee has made calculation

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

150 pages to demonstrate performance of services and benefits therefrom as envisaged under the agreement. The index of the said paper book is AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. 9 extracted below to take note of the list of sample documents furnished by the assessee in this respect:- Sr. No. Particulars 1 Summary of representation

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

150 pages to demonstrate performance of services and benefits therefrom as envisaged under the agreement. The index of the said paper book is AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. 9 extracted below to take note of the list of sample documents furnished by the assessee in this respect:- Sr. No. Particulars 1 Summary of representation

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

150/-and further direct the Ld. AO/TPO to grant the deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 1,89,63,191/- based on the transfer price of Rs,8,48 per unit in respect of CPP at West Bengal. While computing the deduction permissible, the Ld. AO/TPO shall give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and will re-compute the deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

150/-and further direct the Ld. AO/TPO to grant the deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 1,89,63,191/- based on the transfer price of Rs,8,48 per unit in respect of CPP at West Bengal. While computing the deduction permissible, the Ld. AO/TPO shall give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and will re-compute the deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

150 taxman 90] (Allahabad HC) 12. The Ld. A.R, therefore, submitted that in view of the facts of the instant case and the various judicial decisions and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by various High Courts, order passed by the first appellate authority may be upheld and the appeal of the revenue

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 144C(l3) of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law. 2. On the facts of the case and in law, the Hon. Panel erred in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 30,74,59,780/- to the international transactions of the Assessee with its Associated Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as ' AEs’). 3. On the facts