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

X 22,84,84,701 11,42,424 Expenditure in relation to income not includible in total 30,98,586 income Less: Expenditure already disallowed by appellant (3,29,338) Expenditure to be disallowed 27,69,248 36. Therefore the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is calculated at Rs:30,98,586/-. The appellant itself has disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

capital asset to a Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and for that purpose, the procedure prescribed under he Wealth Tax Act are to be applied. In case of any such claim, the AO may rely on the report of the registered valuer under Section 55-A of the Act and in such case it will not be necessary

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

x 852/519] Long Term Capital gains 88,98,508 However, again in 2012 the appellant revalued the land from Rs. 8,50,00,000/- to Rs. 90,00,00,000/-. Timing of revelation is again important as just from FY 2012-13, appellant started earning capital gains from the said Joint Development Agreement. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

x 852/519] Long Term Capital gains 88,98,508 However, again in 2012 the appellant revalued the land from Rs. 8,50,00,000/- to Rs. 90,00,00,000/-. Timing of revelation is again important as just from FY 2012-13, appellant started earning capital gains from the said Joint Development Agreement. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted

ACIT(E), CIR -1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL TRANSPORT WORKERS SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviacit(E), Vs West Bengal Transport Workers Circle-1, 5Th Floor, Social Security Scheme, 10B, Middleton Row, 6, Church Lane, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-700071. Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaalw0133G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh.S.M.Surana, Advocate Date Of Hearing 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.04.2016 Passed By Cit(A)-25, Kolkata For Ay 2011-12 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”).

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56;] Following sub-clause (xviib) shall be inserted after sub-clause (xviia) of clause (24) of section 2 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019 : (xviib) any compensation or other payment referred to in clause (xi) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy

ALOKE RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(INTT.TAXATION), CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

x 10.24) Rs. 1,43,36,000/- Difference (indexed cost excess taken) Rs. 49,94,662/- 4.1 On the basis of above calculation, difference of long term capital gain is calculated here as under: Sl. Particulars Amount No. 1 Full value of consideration Less Allowed Rs. 3,55,72,600 Brokerage (-) 2,37,500 Rs. 3,53,35,100 2

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-23(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDIP ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

x 519 447 (FY 2002-03) 100 (FY 1981) Resultant LT capital gain 7146655.00 2491952/- ITA No.2864/Kol/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO Ward-23(3), Kol. vs. Sudip Roy Page 3 Section 54EC deduction availed 2491952/- 2491952/- of by the appellant-investment in …. .. bond for Rs.2500000/- Taxable L.T capital gain 4,646,655.21 NIL From the above, it is clear that

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

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

x) of the Act. We have considered the findings of the AO and the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court on this issue and respectfully following the judicial ratio of the Jurisdictional High Court on this issue, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

capital gains of Rs.39,919/- was claimed to be exempt by the assessee and a disallowance of Rs.42,110/- was offered u/s 14A of the Act on account of direct expenses incurred in relation to the said exempt income on account of D-MAT charges. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that direct expenses

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

x) Such germ of planning was adopted for avoiding taxes on 'Capital Gains' accrued to the assessee, as well as to the other two partner companies who have contributed land in the aforesaid Partnership Firm, either for the year ended on 31.03.2006 or for the year ended on 31.03.2008. xi) The assessee's contention that revaluation of asset was done

EMAMI INDRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

24-06-1998; in case of multiple demat accounts FIFO method should be followed account wise. Thus in accordance with provisions of sec 45(2A) read with referred circular, the cost of acquisition of Zandu shares sold by Emami Infrastructure Ltd has been computed on FIFO basis after considering period of holding of Emami Ltd. eligible to us. Emami

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

x) Such germ of planning was adopted for avoiding taxes on 'Capital Gains' accrued to the assessee, as well as to the other two partner companies who have contributed land in the aforesaid Partnership Firm, either for the year ended on 31.03.2006 or for the year ended on 31.03.2008. xi) The assessee's contention that revaluation of asset was done

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

x) Such germ of planning was adopted for avoiding taxes on 'Capital Gains' accrued to the assessee, as well as to the other two partner companies who have contributed land in the aforesaid Partnership Firm, either for the year ended on 31.03.2006 or for the year ended on 31.03.2008. xi) The assessee's contention that revaluation of asset was done

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

X Rs.2.06,24,510 = Rs.28,84,937/- Rs.24,82,02,119 41. In my opinion the said interest of Rs.28,84,937/- represents interest paid on borrowed capital which used for acquiring investments in shares which yielded the appellant tax exempt dividend and capital gains income and therefore the same was disallowable u/s 14A of the Act. As regards administrative

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

x) of the Act cannot be made for the previous year relevant to assessment year 2018-19 as the purchase/sale/transfer of the said rice mill took place in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2017- 18 and not in the assessment year 2018-19 ? b. Whether Ld. ITAT erred in law in not appreciating that the de-facto

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]

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income

SMT.BARNALI DHAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Barnali Dhar Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata C/O. S.D. Verma, Advocate, 2Nd Floor, 7, Vs. Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Pan: Ajppd 6989 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 10, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 10 Was Not Justified In Not Deleting A Sum Of Rs. 9933057/- Being The Amount Wrongly Included By The Appellant Under The Head Capital Gain, While Filing Return Of Income Whereas As Per Section 54F No Amount Is Liable To Be Taxed. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Or Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal At Hearing Stage.”

Capital Gain x cost of new house Net Consideration = 2,15,90,819+1,16,57,762 10,46,60,259 Rs. 24,04,928/- 5. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) raising the following grounds: “i. That the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing