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

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

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

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 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. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

154 when in fact the entire sold lands were Rural Agriculture lands and thus the said lands do not come under the purview of the definition of Capital Asset as provided under section 2(14)(iii) and thus the entire calculation of capital gain

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present 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. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

capital gain have been found to be genuine, and as per rules and regulation of SEBI, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the impugned additions in case of assessee(s) in appeal before us are uncalled for. 11.1. In the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Renu Aggarwal (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gain by taking the full value of the consideration to be the value as so revised in such appeal or revision or reference; and the provisions of section 154

BIJNI DOOARS TEA COMPANY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-2, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bijni Dooars Tea Company Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kolkata-2, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1, Kolkata. Vs. Shantiniketan, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aabcb1013E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain on sale of investments was correctly reflected in the audited balance sheet at Rs.78,48,519/-. There was no mala fide intention of the assessee and it is a case of inadvertent mistake. 6.1. It was further submitted that there will be no additional tax liability due to the said error as mentioned above since the assessee was liable

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

154 of the Act filed was rejected. After analysis of the computation sheet, it was noted that the income from capital gains shown at Rs. 68,28,041/- was not correct which as per the final revised return at pages 22 to 27 of the paper book was shown at Rs. ‘NIL’ on account of short term capital gains earned

ALOK GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD.28(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

section 154 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Ld. Sr. DR. pointed the fact that assessee suo moto computed long term capital gain

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).

capital gain in terms of Section 45(2A) of the Act. This ground is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Now we take up Ground Nos. 7 & 8 of the appeal, which are against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act. The facts of the case as noted

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Gain to claim\ndeduction u/s 10(38) of the Act or Short Term Capital Loss or\nbusiness loss. But he failed to detect how your appellant is related\nwith the story. It is also beyond the Assessing Officer's as well as the\nLd. CIT(A)'s capacity because neither your appellant claimed\ndeduction

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

gains of business, the break-up of Rs.26.69 cr and the reasons as to why the assessee is eligible to claim the same was submitted as follows: Particulars Rs. in Remarks crores Extraordinary Item 26.69 Claim not received from the debited in profit and Insurance Company debited in profit Loss A/c (a) and Loss A/c, being loss incurred

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

154 or 147 of the Act. In the present day working, even an AO is working with inputs in the form of Assessee Information System(AIS) or inputs from other external agencies. That does not mean that he is passing an order without application of mind. Now tax computations are made on systems, but does that mean that

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

capital gains of Rs. 2,30,238/- from of sale of equity share and equity-oriented fund, while giving effect to the Impugned Order. Page 3 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 41/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Santanu Sanyal. 9. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in not granting exemption under Section 10(34) on dividend income

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

section 115JB of the Act.\n7.9 We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made\nand the documents filed. The issue arose in the case of Maxopp\nInvestment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [2018]\n91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR

PRAMODE KUMAR HIMATSINGKA, L/H OF GITA DEVI HIMATSINGKA (SINCE DECEASED),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.737/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gita Devi Himatsingka (Since Deceased) Represented By L/H Pramode Kumar Himatsingka…………….………..……..…………………....Appellant 2C, Queens Park, Ballygunge, Kol-19. [Pan: Aarph3735N] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Acit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By Shri Pramod Kumar Himatsingka, Legal Heir Of Smt. Geeta Devi Himatsingka (Deceased), Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dated 19.02.2025, Confirming The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.10.2019, By The Cpc, Bangalore, For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.30,51,986/-. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act On 07.12.2018 & A Refund Of Rs.40,800/- Was Determined & Granted To The Assessee. Subsequently, The Cpc Passed A Rectification Order Dated 30.10.19 By

capital gains and the entire dividend income on equity shares (₹6,99,463) was within the exemption limit of ₹10,00,000, as per Section 115BBDA (as then applicable). The dividend from mutual funds (₹6,90,724) was exempt under Section 10(35) of the Act and was outside the purview of Section 115BBDA. The CPC erroneously treated

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 being computed twice in the computation made in the assessment order. However, the said issue has been addressed by the rectification order dated December 29, 2017 and as such the said issue is not being pressed. 9. The next issue pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 is denial of deduction under section

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 being computed twice in the computation made in the assessment order. However, the said issue has been addressed by the rectification order dated December 29, 2017 and as such the said issue is not being pressed. 9. The next issue pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 is denial of deduction under section

RAIGARH JUTE & TEXTILE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcr2034B] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)- 15 Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing & Adding Back The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction Of Loss Suffered Of Rs.4,02,00,360/- Suffered By The Appellant In Its Share Trading Business. 2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-15 Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Invoking The

Section 14A of the Act and in confirming the addition of Rs.87,194/- made by the Assessing Officer thereunder. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case, the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, is bad in law. 4 That the Appellant craves leave to submit further grounds and to amend, alter or otherwise