MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 7) For that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATQ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

gain of the assessee is not substantiated. The assessing officer noted from the Deed that Forum Riviera Constructions Pvt Ltd was actually entitled to undertake development of the housing project and in the last also when the actual sale of the flat materialised, Forum Riviera Constructions Pvt Ltd received the consideration from the payment of the purchaser in the Deed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

gain, etc. Accordingly, the assessee was called upon to furnish the details which were furnished by the assessee by submitting that the ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 amalgamating company as on the date of merger had investments amounting to ₹93,01,00,000/- which was acquired by the assessee company pursuant

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

gain, etc. Accordingly, the assessee was called upon to furnish the details which were furnished by the assessee by submitting that the ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 amalgamating company as on the date of merger had investments amounting to ₹93,01,00,000/- which was acquired by the assessee company pursuant

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” Relevant extract of the said judgment

SHYAM METALICS AMD ENERGY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

gains or losses. The ld. AO also referred to a report published by the Directorate of Income tax Mumbai, which listed UIL as a penny stock scrip to arrange bogus LTCG/ loss. The ld. AO therefore held that the loss of Rs.1,89,53,757/- incurred on shares of UIL was not genuine and therefore added the same

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision

GANPATI INDUSTRIEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount I.T.A. No. 301/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ganpati Industrial Private Limited 2 collected towards employees’ contribution to PF/ESI cannot be claimed even though deposited within the due date of filing of return of income read with Section

RAJENDRA KUMAR KAPOOR,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain from the transactions in\nsecurities on which STT was paid. The Id. AO received information\nthat assessee has taken a credit of ₹50,00,000/- from entry\noperator M/s Manohar Lal Nangalia through his companies.\nAccordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the\nAct by issuing notice

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

178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ I.T.A. No.387/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG) (P)LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

178 (SC) is reproduced as under:- “Finally, it was found that, applying the test of purpose, the Court was satisfied that the payment received by the assessee under the scheme was not in the nature of a helping hand to the trade but was capital in nature. What is important from the ratio of this judgment is the fact that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

178] (SC) 12 I.T.A. No.1096/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 South City Projects (Kolkata) Limited ii) CIT vs. R L. Kathia Engineering & Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. [33 taxmann.com 14] (Guj. HC) iii) CIT vs. Prem Heavy Engg Works Pvt. Ltd. [150 taxman 90] (Allahabad HC) 12. The Ld. A.R, therefore, submitted that in view of the facts of the instant case