ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MANOJ MURARKA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

capital gains derived by the company to the tune of Rs. 197.20 lacs is exempt and hence the same should not be included in accumulated profits and if the same is excluded, then there is only negative accumulated profits available with the company. Admittedly, the provisions of section 2(22)(e

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S MACHINO TECHNO (SALES) PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. (2) The Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette from time to time [income computation and disclosure standards] to be followed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains of business” in section 80P (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought by a cooperative society must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to Page 18 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains of business” in section 80P (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought by a cooperative society must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to Page 18 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply

DCIT CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

e) the assessee pointed out that gains arising from sale on long term capital asset cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as income from business and disregard to the contention of the CIT(A) that long term capital asset and short term capital asset as defined in section 2(29A) and 2(42A) of the Income

KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

e) the assessee pointed out that gains arising from sale on long term capital asset cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as income from business and disregard to the contention of the CIT(A) that long term capital asset and short term capital asset as defined in section 2(29A) and 2(42A) of the Income

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata dated 25.03.2019 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is a Non-Banking Finance Company. The return of income for the year

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

e) There is nothing wrong for an assessee to purchase certain shares held as investments during the year and selling it within the year at a profitable moment by making huge gains. An investor would only look for capital appreciation and once the same is achieved with reasonable expectations, he would only try to quit and the said action

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

e) There is nothing wrong for an assessee to purchase certain shares held as investments during the year and selling it within the year at a profitable moment by making huge gains. An investor would only look for capital appreciation and once the same is achieved with reasonable expectations, he would only try to quit and the said action

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

e) There is nothing wrong for an assessee to purchase certain shares held as investments during the year and selling it within the year at a profitable moment by making huge gains. An investor would only look for capital appreciation and once the same is achieved with reasonable expectations, he would only try to quit and the said action

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

e) There is nothing wrong for an assessee to purchase certain shares held as investments during the year and selling it within the year at a profitable moment by making huge gains. An investor would only look for capital appreciation and once the same is achieved with reasonable expectations, he would only try to quit and the said action

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

e) were merely powers incidental to the carrying out of that dominant and primary purpose; (ii) That the dominant or primary purpose of the promotion of commerce and trade in art silk, etc., was an object of public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit within the meaning of s.2(15) and that the assessee

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

e) were merely powers incidental to the carrying out of that dominant and primary purpose; (ii) That the dominant or primary purpose of the promotion of commerce and trade in art silk, etc., was an object of public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit within the meaning of s.2(15) and that the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

e) No borrowed funds were used to purchase shares held as investments. (f) The volume of investment in comparison to the share capital of the assessee is not very high. (g) The revenue had accepted the treatment of the shares held as investments in its books and the resultant gains thereon as short term and long term capital gains

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

e) No borrowed funds were used to purchase shares held as investments. (f) The volume of investment in comparison to the share capital of the assessee is not very high. (g) The revenue had accepted the treatment of the shares held as investments in its books and the resultant gains thereon as short term and long term capital gains

SANTOSH KUMAR JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 45(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 31F, Ramkrishna Samadhi Ward-45(4), 3, V/S. Road, Kolkata-700054 Government Place [Pan No.Acspj 6607 N] (West), Kolkata-700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 18.07.2017 Passed In Case No.118/Cit(A)-13/W-44(1)/Kol/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Canvassed In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Making Deemed Dividend Addition Of ₹6,32,449/- In His Hands. The Cit(A);S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “Decision:- 6. I Have Gone Through The Contention Of The Assessee, The Order Passed By The Ao & The Submissions Made By The Appellant. The Decision Of This Appeal Is Given As Under:- 6.1. In This Case The Only Issue Relates To The Addition Of Rs.6,33,449/- As A Deemed Evident Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T Act. While Making Addition The Ao Found That ''During The Course Of Assessment Proceeding M/S. Benchmark Developers Pvt. Ltd For The A. Y 2009-10, It Was Observed That The Assessee Has Taken Loan From M/S. Benchmark Developers Pvt. Ltd. Amounting To Rs. 6,60,000/- In Which He Is One Of The Director & Holds About 35% Of

section 2(22)(e) is not applicable. The entire arrangement was made for the business interest of the company. " 6.3 I have perused the ground of appeal and the fact of the case. The appellant has argued that the said company made payment of Rs.6,60,000/- by cheque number 106429 dated 24-03-2009 directly to 581 life insurance

SHIV TRANSPORT & TRAVELS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-56(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 889/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08

2. The only addition that is challenged in this appeal is the addition of Rs.9 lacs made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) invoking the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act, reads as follows: “Sec.2(22) "dividend" includes— “(e) Any payment

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

e construction loan given by her to the landlord of Rs.8,00,000/ to the landlord of Rs.8,00,000/- but the supplementary deed shows that the interest would accrue supplementary deed shows that the interest would accrue to the assessee after 10 to the assessee after 10 years. He argued that the assessee had not the assessee

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

22. In the case of Smt. Saki Gupta, the Ld. AR of the appellant raised an alternate contention claiming exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Drawing attention to the submissions made before the AO, the Ld. AR submitted that in order to acquire another residential house for claiming exemption u/s 54F, the assessee had purchased three storied building for Rs.47