ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

2(24)(xviii) of the Act, where the capital gain is from an asset forming part of the block of asset in respect of which depreciation has been allowed then subject to certain conditions, the capital gain arising from such transfer is deemed to be a short term capital gain. 20. Section

BANSABATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 8, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

gains confidence, places reliance on, or banks upon a particular establishment, is by looking at the total of the assets of the bank concerned. The assets would include all investments net of liabilities. In other words a balance sheet which reflects sound financial health of a bank would get preference over an establishment whose banker is required to invest

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

2,93,7201- is added an undisclosed expenditure under section 69C of the Act. ITA No.1254-1255/Kol/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Navin Kr. Kajaria & Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria Vs. ACIT Cir-35/36 Kol Page 17 6. Commodity loss During the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen that the assessee had booked commodity loss to the tune of Rs.2

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

2,93,7201- is added an undisclosed expenditure under section 69C of the Act. ITA No.1254-1255/Kol/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Navin Kr. Kajaria & Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria Vs. ACIT Cir-35/36 Kol Page 17 6. Commodity loss During the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen that the assessee had booked commodity loss to the tune of Rs.2

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S ANKIT METAL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

gainfully refer to the following findings of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of RBS Equities (India) Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (28 taxmann.com 158), upholding the Revenue’s plea for use of arithmetical mean instead of weighted average mean. “As regards the claim of the assessee for adopting weighted average arithmetic mean of brokerage rate

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

section 68, where any sum Is found credited In the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to Income- tax as the Income of the assessee of that previous veer if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof Is, In the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

2) of the Rules for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

2) of the Rules for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

2) of the Rules for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

2) of the Rules for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A

ROHIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

2,46,83,694, he made a capital gain of Rs.2,35,93,694. Copy of long term capital gain statement is available at page 93 of paper book. Since the sale was made after one year of holding and after payment of STT and transactions took place in the floor of the recognized stock exchange (BSE), the income

ADITYA VIKRAM SUREKA, HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1650/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Aditya Vikram Sureka Huf -Vs- Ito, Ward-34(2) , Kolkata [Pan: Aamha 4069 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2,50,000/- , the proportionate cost of 71000 shares was worked out as under:- Rs 250000 / 111000 shares * 71000 shares = Rs 1,59,910/- The sale transactions of shares were effected in the stock exchange through a registered share broker after duly suffering STT. Hence the assessee claimed total long term capital gains as exempt

KIRAN KOTHARI HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

2 Kiran Kothari HUF A.Y.2013-14 term capital gains of Rs.24,87,605 on sale of shares of M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. The AO noted that the assessee purchased 13,500 shares of Tuni Textile Mills Ltd on 06/04/2011 from a stock broker in an off-market transaction from M/s Badri Prasad & Sons who was a member of the Calcutta

SANJIT KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.416&417/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sanjit Kumar Ghosh…...……….....................................……………....Appellant C/O Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Adhpg7981J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Durgapur.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Jain, Ar, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & None Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjiv Kumar Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15, 2023 & November 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.11.2021 & 28.04.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively.

capital receipt. However, as per I.T.A. Nos.416&417/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sanjit Kumar Ghosh the Clause xviii to section 2(24) as inserted by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f 01.04.2016, any assistance in the form of subsidy or grant is taxable. The ld. counsel however has relied upon the following press release: “PRESS RELEASE FINANCE BILL, 2015 - CLARIFICATION

SANJIT KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.416&417/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sanjit Kumar Ghosh…...……….....................................……………....Appellant C/O Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Adhpg7981J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Durgapur.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Jain, Ar, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & None Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjiv Kumar Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15, 2023 & November 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.11.2021 & 28.04.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively.

capital receipt. However, as per I.T.A. Nos.416&417/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sanjit Kumar Ghosh the Clause xviii to section 2(24) as inserted by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f 01.04.2016, any assistance in the form of subsidy or grant is taxable. The ld. counsel however has relied upon the following press release: “PRESS RELEASE FINANCE BILL, 2015 - CLARIFICATION

TAMLUK GHATAL CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A.C.I.T CIR - HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

24,000 ---------------- 1,81,37,000 Investment in Mutual Funds 27,50,00,000 3 ITA Nods.1747&1748/Kol/2013 Tamluk Ghatal Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.. A.Yrs.2008-09&2009-2010 The Learned AR fairly stated that though the investment in mutual funds would yield dividend income which would be exempt u/s 10 of the Act and accordingly the provisions

SMT. MADHU KILLA, KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

2 Madhu Killa. AY 2014-15 value and added a sum of Rs.10,82,460/- to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 3. Before us the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

capital receipt. We find that this issue was subject matter of adjudication in assessee’s own case for the Asst Year 2007-08 in ITA No. 686 & 581/Kol/2011 dated 8.12.2014 wherein it was held that the said interest subsidy would have to be treated as a capital receipt but with a direction to reduce the same from the cost