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

gain, the provision of Section 50C would be applicable. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the action of the AO of not referring the matter to the DVO. Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (f) The Ld. CIT(A) held that the acceptable variation range of (+/-) 15% does not exist within

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

gain, the provision of Section 50C would be applicable. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the action of the AO of not referring the matter to the DVO. Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (f) The Ld. CIT(A) held that the acceptable variation range of (+/-) 15% does not exist within

ACIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

capital gains. It was also observed that the assessee has earned gross dividend of Rs 4.77 crores and claimed the gross amount as exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act without allocating any expense on account of interest and other administrative expenditure. According to ld AO , it is the net dividend after deducting expenses which is exempt

ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

capital gains. It was also observed that the assessee has earned gross dividend of Rs 4.77 crores and claimed the gross amount as exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act without allocating any expense on account of interest and other administrative expenditure. According to ld AO , it is the net dividend after deducting expenses which is exempt

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

section 2(47), its cost of acquisition cannot be determined. In the absence of such cost of acquisition, the computation provisions failed and capital gains cannot be calculated. Therefore, right to sue cannot be subjected to Income tax under the head 'capital gains' . … . In this case also, similar view is taken that the nature of settlement amount is of capital

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

section 2(47), its cost of acquisition cannot be determined. In the absence of such cost of acquisition, the computation provisions failed and capital gains cannot be calculated. Therefore, right to sue cannot be subjected to Income tax under the head 'capital gains' . … . In this case also, similar view is taken that the nature of settlement amount is of capital

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

section 2(47), its cost of acquisition cannot be determined. In the absence of such cost of acquisition, the computation provisions failed and capital gains cannot be calculated. Therefore, right to sue cannot be subjected to Income tax under the head 'capital gains' . … . In this case also, similar view is taken that the nature of settlement amount is of capital

INFINITY INFOTECH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section separately); Debited Rs.l,04,50,000/- and Rs.4,65,000/- and deduction allowable Rs.l,30,62,500/ - and Rs.8, 13, 750/ - u/ s 35(1)(iii) and u/ s 35(1)(ii) respectively. Debited and deduction allowable Rs. 76,00, 000/ - u/ s 35AC.” The amounts for which deduction was permissible

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

Section 54F of the Act cannot be applied because the same pertains to capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. During the course of proceedings u/s 154 of the Act, assessee gave detailed reply firstly contending that agricultural land in question is not a capital asset and, therefore

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains on sale of shares of M/s. Vishal Retail Ltd as pointed out by the ld.AO in his penalty order vide page 2. The plea of the assessee that the claim for exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act was a bonafide mistake made by the assessee has to be accepted. There is no material on record to show

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1359/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 0993 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital gains" and "Income from other sources"], or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent

KAMALESH BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Kamalesh Basu Vs. Cit(A)-Xvi, Kolkata 29/1/1, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeapb 6771 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

gains and does not ‘transfer’ as per section 2(47) of the Act, because ultimately the capital remains with the mutual fund only. For bona fide belief, we rely of the following judgments: (1)Rajendra vs. ACIT (2O1O) 127 ITD 361 (Chennai) The facts of the above case before the Hon'ble Tribunal were that the assessee received gifts from

MISRILALL MINES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gains” only. Similarly, the transactions for the sale-purchase shares carried out through PMS cannot be regarded as business transactions for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, we are inclined to reverse the order of Authorities Below and this ground of assessee is allowed. 9. Next issue raised by assessee in ground No.2 is that Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

ADITYA VIKRAM SUREKA, HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1650/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Aditya Vikram Sureka Huf -Vs- Ito, Ward-34(2) , Kolkata [Pan: Aamha 4069 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 29.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Though the assessee had raised various grounds before us, the only effective issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in confirming the addition made towards unexplained cash credit