ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 to 124 of the paper book. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that the assessee along with other two partner companies had given land held as stock in trade as their capital contribution in the partnership firm M/s Salarpuria Soft Zone

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

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 in this regard which is at page

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) (Mumbai ITAT)” 8. Per contra, the ld. CIT, DR submitted that in the facts of this case, the AO ought to have referred report of DVO and he shall take decision as per law to determine the actual cost of acquisition of the property sold and to determine the correct amount of long term capital gain earned

I.T.O WD - 1(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 2269/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 I.T.O., Ward-1(4) -Vs.- M/S. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaco 7148 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Angam Shaiza, Cit For The Respondent : (I) Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate (Ii)Shri S.Jhajharia, Fca (Iii) Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate

1). It cannot therefore be said that the initiation of proceedings under section 147 was by way of change of opinion. In the absence of an assessment under section 143(3), it cannot be said that the AO formed an opinion which he sought to change. The only question is as to whether the AO formed any belief that

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

150/- No Not taxable as per the No Not taxable as per the Members of above above discussion discussion and and Assessee exempt as received exempt as received from relatives Group Entities of 11.21 11.21 Rs.174.20.35.742/- Taxable under Section 56 Taxable under Section 56 Assessee Total 12.87 12.87 Rs.200,00,00,000/- Further, it can be clearly seen that

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

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

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 54 of the Act and thus substantively complied with the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 15. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 5,99,150/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice was issued

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

150 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each was satisfactorily explained by the appellant but not that of the balance of 141 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each”. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are equally applicable to the case of the assessee. In our view, the assessing officer having failed to bring on record

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

150 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each was satisfactorily explained by the appellant but not that of the balance of 141 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each”. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are equally applicable to the case of the assessee. In our view, the assessing officer having failed to bring on record

SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

150 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each was satisfactorily explained by the appellant but not that of the balance of 141 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each”. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are equally applicable to the case of the assessee. In our view, the assessing officer having failed to bring on record

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

1,00,000/- 25.04.2009: 65,000/- 30.06.2009: 50,000/- 30.06.2009: 50,000/- (iii) Cost of Improvement Nil Rs.4,47,350/- SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN : Rs.2,55,150/-“ 3.6. The ld AO observed that the ld JCIT had categorically held that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 54 of the Act as after bifurcation of sale consideration into land

SMT. SANGITA JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

150/- & ₹9,15,209/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard all the assessees as well as the department reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition(s). 2. It emerges at the outset that

SRI SANJEEV JHUNJHUNWALA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

150/- & ₹9,15,209/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard all the assessees as well as the department reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition(s). 2. It emerges at the outset that

SRI SANJEEV JHUNJHUNWALA, HUF,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

150/- & ₹9,15,209/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard all the assessees as well as the department reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition(s). 2. It emerges at the outset that

SMT. NITA JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

150/- & ₹9,15,209/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard all the assessees as well as the department reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition(s). 2. It emerges at the outset that

SRI ASHOK JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

150/- & ₹9,15,209/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard all the assessees as well as the department reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition(s). 2. It emerges at the outset that

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

150 CTR (MP) 131 : (1998) 232 ITR 928 (MP). In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clearly held that Prior period depreciation and expenditure are not allowable deduction while computing book profit under s. 115J of the IT Act, 1961, rlw s. 205(1), proviso (b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Same ratio was laid down