SWAMI SATYANANDA ,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD - 50(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1614/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Swami Satyananda Vs. Ito, Ward-50(3), Kolkata

capital gain. However, the AO rejected the contention of the assessee and held that since the reference was made u/s 55A of the Act and whereupon report of DVO is binding upon the AO in terms of same reference made u/s 55A read with Section 16A, read with section 16A(5) and 16A(6

BOC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

gains as per his requirement. In the original computation of income, the assessee adopted the FMV at Rs.6,42,700/- against the value mentioned in the sale deed at Rs.27,00,000/-. Once the provisions of sec. 50C were adopted, the assessee immediately enhanced the FMV placing a valuation report to suit his requirement. In view of the above

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

6(a) to (f) by assessee in this appeal 17. is that ld. CIT(A) erred for accepting the valuation of Chowringhee property on the basis of DVO report instead of taking the valuation made by the registered valuer engaged by the assessee. 18. The assessee was having the land & building located at ICI House at Chowringhee, Kolkata consisting

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

6(a) to (f) by assessee in this appeal 17. is that ld. CIT(A) erred for accepting the valuation of Chowringhee property on the basis of DVO report instead of taking the valuation made by the registered valuer engaged by the assessee. 18. The assessee was having the land & building located at ICI House at Chowringhee, Kolkata consisting

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

6(a) to (f) by assessee in this appeal 17. is that ld. CIT(A) erred for accepting the valuation of Chowringhee property on the basis of DVO report instead of taking the valuation made by the registered valuer engaged by the assessee. 18. The assessee was having the land & building located at ICI House at Chowringhee, Kolkata consisting

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

6(a) to (f) by assessee in this appeal 17. is that ld. CIT(A) erred for accepting the valuation of Chowringhee property on the basis of DVO report instead of taking the valuation made by the registered valuer engaged by the assessee. 18. The assessee was having the land & building located at ICI House at Chowringhee, Kolkata consisting

EMPORIS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Emporis Properties Pvt. Ltd..................................…..............................……Appellant 5Th Floor, 16A, Brabourne Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadce0793Q] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-2...................….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :September 08, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :September 22, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26.03.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

16A, Brabourne Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [PAN: AADCE0793Q] vs. PCIT, Kolkata-2...................….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate and Mita Rizvi, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing :September 08, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order :September 22, 2022 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग", "या

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

16A issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.] 2.1. Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal has taken the issue ground-wise and in his judgement dismissed the grounds of the appellant that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') erred in law and in facts in assessing the income of the appellant

M/S. BOTHRA AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

capital Gain of Rs.18,10,318/- was calculated. Considering above and as discussed in para 4, while deciding ground no 3 above the addition of Rs.18,10,318/- made by the AO under section 50(2) is confirmed.” 16. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 17. Now, being aggrieved by this

M/S. BOTHRA AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

capital Gain of Rs.18,10,318/- was calculated. Considering above and as discussed in para 4, while deciding ground no 3 above the addition of Rs.18,10,318/- made by the AO under section 50(2) is confirmed.” 16. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 17. Now, being aggrieved by this

DIPSC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I T CIR - VI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

16a is applicable, has, for an assessment year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 2012, an option to prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year either in accordance with the provisions of Part II and Part III of Schedule VI17 to the Companies Act, 1956 or in accordance with the provisions

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

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

capital of its own (Rs.148,27,74,222/-) as against investment of only Rs.43,45,97,241/- and hence the presumption taken by the Ld. PCIT for such direction for disallowance towards interest is bad in law and it may be held accordingly. 4. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 2 & 3 above, the Ld. PCIT erred in directing

DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN COAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

capital of its own (Rs.148,27,74,222/-) as against investment of only Rs.43,45,97,241/- and hence the presumption taken by the Ld. PCIT for such direction for disallowance towards interest is bad in law and it may be held accordingly. 4. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 2 & 3 above, the Ld. PCIT erred in directing

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

capital of its own (Rs.148,27,74,222/-) as against investment of only Rs.43,45,97,241/- and hence the presumption taken by the Ld. PCIT for such direction for disallowance towards interest is bad in law and it may be held accordingly. 4. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 2 & 3 above, the Ld. PCIT erred in directing

KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Capital gains - Short Term: Rs. 22,10,705/- (b) (c) Income from Other Sources: Rs.36,29,000/- (d) Total Income ; Rs.1,08,02,162/- R/Off to : Rs.1,08,02,160/- The tax liability thereon after adjustment of MAT credit available and interest was Rs.25,09,840/- which was fully met. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore (Assessing Officer) sent a communication dated

HITT HOLLAND INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY B. V. vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 574/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic -Vs.- D.D.I.T. (Intl.T)-1, Technology B.V., Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabch 5694 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ar For The Respondent : Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

gains of business or profession" in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Invoking the aforesaid provisions the AO attributed 50% of the receipts from providing services as income chargeable to tax in India as per Sec.44DA of the Act. 12. Before DRP the Assessee submitted that the assesse had setup a Project Office (PO) in India