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

gains of business or profession’. The interest on late payment of TDS, is not covered either under the provision of sections 30 to 36 of the Act, nor it qualifies as expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business or profession u/s 37 of the Act. Even u/s 36(1) (iii) of the Act, the amount of interest

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1. CIT v. Alim Bag Salim Bhai 163 ITR 767 (MP) 2. Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1. CIT v. Alim Bag Salim Bhai 163 ITR 767 (MP) 2. Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1. CIT v. Alim Bag Salim Bhai 163 ITR 767 (MP) 2. Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted

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]

163 (Karnataka). The operative part is reproduced as under: “4.1 Re.QuestionNo.2 : "As is clear from Sub-section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

capital gain and Rs. 73,60,000/- was added in respect of investment in shares of M/s Shri Ganesh Spinners Limited, controlled and manage Shri Shah. The assessment was framed by the AO was affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld AR vehemently submitted that the assessment framed by the AO u/s 144/147 of the Act vide order

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

163 Taxman 331 ( MP-HC) “It was observed that the provisions of s. 205(1), cl. (b) of the first proviso to the Companies Act stand statutorily incorporated in the IT Act and, therefore, in order to work out the book profit, the loss and depreciation has to be worked out in terms of the Companies Act and thereafter

SHRI VIJAY MAHIPAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

163 (Karn). In the aforesaid decision the assessee had not deposited the unutilised net consideration in a specific bank account as is required u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee had however invested the net consideration in construction of a residential house within the period contemplated u/s 54F (1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, Kolkata M/S Stp Limited C/O. G.P. Agarwal & Associates, 7A, Kiran Shankar Ray Road, 2Nd Floor, Kol-1. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs6339M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

163 ITR 364 [1985] 22 Taxman 418 [Raj] d) Exxon Mobil Lubricants (P) Ltd. [Delhi [2010] 328 ITR 17. Hon’ble High Court was of the view that liability of the assessee under the agreement had arisen and accrued in August, 2002, when the agreement was executed and, therefore, the liability of the assessee to pay for period January

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the Ld. AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and penalty show cause notice was issued to the appellant. Consequently, penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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 amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO erred in not allowing deduction of u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Page

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 amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO erred in not allowing deduction of u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Page

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

capital employed in the business. Provisions are usually shown in the balance sheet by way of deductions from the assets in respect of which they are made whereas general reserves and reserve funds are shown as part of the proprietor's interest - see Spicer and Pegler's Book-keeping and Accounts, 15th

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

163/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the assessee had sold his landed properties measuring 3.55 acres for ₹4,17,50,000/- on which Long Term Capital Gain

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gains tax and income from such investments is not exempt under the provisions of the Act. He argued that even in respect of the assessee's investments in other schemes of mutual funds providing for payment of dividend, the assessee is liable for capital gains tax upon disposal/redemption of the units since such schemes are also not equity oriented

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gains tax and income from such investments is not exempt under the provisions of the Act. He argued that even in respect of the assessee's investments in other schemes of mutual funds providing for payment of dividend, the assessee is liable for capital gains tax upon disposal/redemption of the units since such schemes are also not equity oriented

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gains tax and income from such investments is not exempt under the provisions of the Act. He argued that even in respect of the assessee's investments in other schemes of mutual funds providing for payment of dividend, the assessee is liable for capital gains tax upon disposal/redemption of the units since such schemes are also not equity oriented

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gains tax and income from such investments is not exempt under the provisions of the Act. He argued that even in respect of the assessee's investments in other schemes of mutual funds providing for payment of dividend, the assessee is liable for capital gains tax upon disposal/redemption of the units since such schemes are also not equity oriented