ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 201(IA) of IT Act.” 26. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press ground No.1 to 3, 5, 6 & 11 of this appeal. Ld. DR raised no objection regarding the action of Ld. AR for not pressing these grounds. Hence, we dismiss those grounds of assessee

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 201(IA) of IT Act.” 26. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press ground No.1 to 3, 5, 6 & 11 of this appeal. Ld. DR raised no objection regarding the action of Ld. AR for not pressing these grounds. Hence, we dismiss those grounds of assessee

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Capital Gains. However, the AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta Stock Exchange found that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the transactions were bogus. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, affirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was found that the chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have been

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Capital Gains. However, the AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta Stock Exchange found that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the transactions were bogus. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, affirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was found that the chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have been

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

gains etc. while the income of the trust is to be computed as per the normal commercial principles by considering the receipt and expenditure for the relevant period. It is also stated that out of total receipts received in the relevant year at Rs.68,41,927/-, only Rs. 80,000/- was on account of donations received and a substantial

ITO, WARD - 31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAHESH KUMAR SINGHANIA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 48 of the it Act in computing the capital gains. 4. For that the Ld CIT (A) erred in reducing the returned income of the assessee. 5. For that the Revenue craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing.” 2. The assessee is a HUF and derives income from rent

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

201. The question whether or not the provisions of explanation to section 73 could be invoked, without meeting the tests laid down in Aman Portfolio's case (Supra), could be purely academic. Section 70 and section 71 of the Act meaning and interpretations are as under:- Section 70: set off of loss from one source against income from another source

SRI KUSH NAHATA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1899/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Kush Nahata Vs. Ito, Ward-35(3), Kolkata

capital gains. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the persons investigated, including entry operators or stock brokers, have named that the assessee was in collusion with them. In absence of such finding how is it possible to link their wrong doings with the assessee. In fact, the investigation wing is a separate department which has not been

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

gains of business or profession’. The interest on late payment of TDS, is not covered either under the provision of sections 30 to 36 of the Act, nor it qualifies as expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business or profession u/s 37 of the Act. Even u/s 36(1) (iii) of the Act, the amount of interest

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

Capital Gains. However, the AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta Stock Exchange found that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the transactions were bogus. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, affirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was found that the chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have been

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

capital expenditure, then the writing off of the same would not entitle the assessee to claim any deduction. If, on the contrary, it had the character of a revenue expenditure the writing off certainly shall entitle the assessee to claim the deduction. 11. Mr. Bandhyopadhya, learned advocate, appearing for the revenue submitted that the judgment in the case of Mysore

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

capital expenditure, then the writing off of the same would not entitle the assessee to claim any deduction. If, on the contrary, it had the character of a revenue expenditure the writing off certainly shall entitle the assessee to claim the deduction. 11. Mr. Bandhyopadhya, learned advocate, appearing for the revenue submitted that the judgment in the case of Mysore

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

capital expenditure, then the writing off of the same would not entitle the assessee to claim any deduction. If, on the contrary, it had the character of a revenue expenditure the writing off certainly shall entitle the assessee to claim the deduction. 11. Mr. Bandhyopadhya, learned advocate, appearing for the revenue submitted that the judgment in the case of Mysore

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1359/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 0993 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains" and "Income from other sources"], or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which

M/S THE RIGHT ADDRESS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,(TDS) WARD-59(4) (TDS),KOLKATA KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 201 (lA) for the said years and the assessee had accepted the said finding. " In the case of Thomas Muthoot vs. DCIT (2012) 34 CCH 0170 (copy enclosed at Page 1-12 of the Paper Book), the Cochin Tribunal discussed the case of the assessee in detail. In this case, the assessee failed to deduct the TDS on payments

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gains”. The Assessing Officer found that the purpose of selling share at a price less than market value/ book value was to escape from the tax liability therefore, it was disallowed by AO. However, from the above facts, we understand that genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of share with assessee and buyer-company has not been

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed and that of Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

capital gains invested in the bonds which are redeemable after three years and issued by the National Highways Authority of India or by the Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., on or after 1-4-2006. There is no limitation for the investment. However, the Central Government later issued a Notification No. 380/2006, F. No. 142 of 2006-TPL, dated

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed and that of Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

capital gains invested in the bonds which are redeemable after three years and issued by the National Highways Authority of India or by the Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., on or after 1-4-2006. There is no limitation for the investment. However, the Central Government later issued a Notification No. 380/2006, F. No. 142 of 2006-TPL, dated