SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

184/- u/s 50C . As per provision of section 54, the capital gain will be exempted for taxation if the assessee has within a period of one year before and two years after the date on which the transfer took place ‘purchased’ or has within a period of three years after the date constructed a residential house then instead

SWATI MALL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2423/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Swati Mall -Vs- Ito, Ward-36(2), Kolkata . [Pan: Aflpm 0374 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

184/-. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CITA. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. It emerges at the outset that both the lower authorities have adopted identical line of reasoning in treating the sale consideration received on transfer of shares in STIL to be bogus thereby

M/S JALAN CEMENT WORKS LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jalan Cement Works V/S. Cit, Kolkata-1 Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No Aayakar Bhawan, 202, 81, Netji Subhas Road, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 001 Square, Kolkata- [Pan No.: Aaacj6788R] 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gains of business or profession as well both the income from service charges in the amount of Rs.2.25 crores and the loss in share trading of Rs.2.23 crores, would have to be taken into account in computing the income under that head, both being sources under the same head. The assessee had a dividend income of Rs.4.7 lakhs (income from

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

184/- as bad debt in the profit & Loss account which included Rs.22,50,922/- against loan, Rs.10,20,000/- against seed capital and Rs. 5,67,266/- against Miscellaneous receipts. The Appellants submission that a sum of Rs.7,94,42,873/-being provision created and allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the act was reduced from such bad debts

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

184 of chapter V of earlier 1979 version of OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and suggested that it supports recharacterisation of loan as equity. xii. In the end, reference has been made to ATO's Taxation Ruling TR92/11. It has been mentioned that the TPO has relied on this Ruling issued by the Australian Taxation Office to reject the arguments

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

184 of chapter V of earlier 1979 version of OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and suggested that it supports recharacterisation of loan as equity. xii. In the end, reference has been made to ATO's Taxation Ruling TR92/11. It has been mentioned that the TPO has relied on this Ruling issued by the Australian Taxation Office to reject the arguments

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

184 of chapter V of earlier 1979 version of OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and suggested that it supports recharacterisation of loan as equity. xii. In the end, reference has been made to ATO's Taxation Ruling TR92/11. It has been mentioned that the TPO has relied on this Ruling issued by the Australian Taxation Office to reject the arguments

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 BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

section 195 of the Act for issuing NIL tax withholding Certificate. This application was rejected by the Assessing Officer as well as by the learned CIT(A). It was in these circumstances that the learned Delhi Bench of the Tribunal upheld the claim of the Revenue that it was for the Assessing Officer to determine what portion of the payments

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

5) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, it would not be liable to FBT. However, if the leave travel concession/assistance is not included in 'salary' as defined in section 17 will be classified as an expense for the purposes referred to clause (F) of sub-section (2) of section 115WB and will accordingly be liable

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

5) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, it would not be liable to FBT. However, if the leave travel concession/assistance is not included in 'salary' as defined in section 17 will be classified as an expense for the purposes referred to clause (F) of sub-section (2) of section 115WB and will accordingly be liable

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

5) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, it would not be liable to FBT. However, if the leave travel concession/assistance is not included in 'salary' as defined in section 17 will be classified as an expense for the purposes referred to clause (F) of sub-section (2) of section 115WB and will accordingly be liable

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

5) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, it would not be liable to FBT. However, if the leave travel concession/assistance is not included in 'salary' as defined in section 17 will be classified as an expense for the purposes referred to clause (F) of sub-section (2) of section 115WB and will accordingly be liable

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

5) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, it would not be liable to FBT. However, if the leave travel concession/assistance is not included in 'salary' as defined in section 17 will be classified as an expense for the purposes referred to clause (F) of sub-section (2) of section 115WB and will accordingly be liable

J.C.I.D.(OSD),CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA vs. SRI ADITYA KUMAR SINGHANIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

184 ITR 308 as the AO mentioned in his/her Asstt. Ord. 4) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts by not considering the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. vs. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 77 as the AO mentioned in his/her

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am

5,65,64,184/­ B. Import of tools and capital equipment, Rs.3,84,57,470/­ C. Payment, for service chargefor IT services, sales support, marketing and advertisement and sorting services, Rs.5,05,74,785/­ D. Export of tools, Rs.13,04,115/­ E. Export of finished goods, Rs.45,83,01,658/­ F. Payment for technical know­how, royalty,Rs.79