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

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

194), no capital gain was chargeable to tax when the appellant received Settlement amount of Euro 3.5 million. In the said judgment the Supreme Court observed as follows: “... Section

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 775/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pan: Aabcb2066P) Circle-7(1), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.10.2016

section 263 of the Act. 9. We have heard rival submissions and carefully examined the record in the light of the submissions made by both the sides. Learned CIT in his order observed that the agreement that was entered into between the assessee and M/s. Group Danone is in the nature of non- compete agreement, not to launch the biscuit

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

194 I has no application so far as the impugned payments for transmission of electricity is concerned. For this short reason alone the impugned demands must be held to unsustainable in law.” 9. On due consideration the order of the coordinate bench in the assessee’s own case in assessment year 2005-06, and 2006-07 as well

ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MID LAND PROJECTS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 50C for the purpose of computing capital gains on sale of the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings, we hold that the Learned CIT(A) is right in restricting the capital gains at Rs. 3,56,354/- as against Rs. 45,62,018/- made by the Learned AO. Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer

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

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

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

194 on the reimbursement of salary of seconded I.T.A. Nos. 1671/KOL./2008 & 1024/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 & I.T.A. Nos. 1699/KOL/2008 & 973/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 10 of 34 employees. Keeping in view these decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nagase India Pvt. Limited (supra) and Temasek Holdings Advisers India

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TOLLYGUNGE ESTATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

capital gains in accordance with IT Act, 1961 and tax accordingly. Therefore, assessee’s ground no. 1 & 2 are allowed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us. Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Niloy Baran Som, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TOLLYGUNGE ESTATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

capital gains in accordance with IT Act, 1961 and tax accordingly. Therefore, assessee’s ground no. 1 & 2 are allowed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us. Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Niloy Baran Som, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

capital gain has been invested in purchase of flat before the time available for filing the return u/s 139 and thus eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act even if the sale deed was executed subsequently. He has further erred in observing that assessee has failed to produce documentary evidence in support of claim ignoring that the same

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gains shown as earned on account of sale/purchase of shares\ntaken through bank account No. CA-3097, Corporation Bank, Karol\nBagh, New Delhi in the name of R.K. Agarwal & Co. by obtaining\nentries for Rs.6,00,000, Rs.7,00,000 and Rs.7,70,000 on 28-2-\n1998, 28-2-1998 and 1-3-1998 respectively. He has directed

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

194/- 5,01,814/- 0 -9,82,475/- 0 -40,88,759/- income u/s115JB 4. Similarly, the details of profit and loss account are also mentioned from page 6 to 9 of the appeal order. It is mentioned in para 5.3 of the assessment order that “Perusal of the financials indicates the poor financial condition and razor thin profits earned/losses

ANDREW YULE & CO LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, -2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gain earned by the assessee from the sale of shares in question was claimed to be exempt and the matter relating to the said claim was pending before BIFR. He submitted that the Assessing Officer was aware of this position and after examining the relevant details, he took a considerate decision to allow the claim of the assessee

ACIT, CIR-1, , DURGAPUR vs. M/S THE DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD., DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar)

194 LA of the IT Act on the said payment to the assessee. 5. On-going through the submission, I found that the contention of the assessee is not acceptable.” 4.1. After the order of the ld. assessing authority, the ld. CIT(A) has made the following observations against the order of the AO which are as follows

RAIGARH JUTE & TEXTILE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcr2034B] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)- 15 Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing & Adding Back The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction Of Loss Suffered Of Rs.4,02,00,360/- Suffered By The Appellant In Its Share Trading Business. 2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-15 Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Invoking The

Section 14A of the Act and in confirming the addition of Rs.87,194/- made by the Assessing Officer thereunder. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case, the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, is bad in law. 4 That the Appellant craves leave to submit further grounds and to amend, alter or otherwise