ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

Section 69C of LT. Act, 1961 is intended for addition on the basis of actual expenses. 2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. is wrong and unjustified in making ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of Trip Expenses and Repairs & Maintenance expenses without finding any defect on verification of sample

SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1) , KOLKATA

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

Section 69C of LT. Act, 1961 is intended for addition on the basis of actual expenses. 2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. is wrong and unjustified in making ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of Trip Expenses and Repairs & Maintenance expenses without finding any defect on verification of sample

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

Section 69C of LT. Act, 1961 is intended for addition on the basis of actual expenses. 2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. is wrong and unjustified in making ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of Trip Expenses and Repairs & Maintenance expenses without finding any defect on verification of sample

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AJANTA FINE FOODS PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08

Section 50C of the Act amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 have come into force only on 01.10.2009 and were not at all applicable for any transfer of capital asset, which has taken place prior to that date,, in this case, on 28.3.2007 is correct. I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to determine Long Term and Short Term Capital

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, 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

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

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

ACIT, CIR. 43, KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B.DEVELOPERS, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Cross Objection by the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

207, Maharshi Devendra Road, Room No. 49, Kolkata-700007 [PAN: AAIFK5844N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,....................................Respondent Circle-43, Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001 Appearances by: Shri John Vincent Donkupur Longistick, CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee Date of concluding the hearing : April

PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 2360/Kol/2017 A.Y 2014-15 Prakasho Devi Saria Vs. Cit(A), Siliguri Pan: Agzpd611L (Appellant) (Respondent)

207 19/3/14 10,67,296 (29,81,911) Int. 6 NHPC 5,000 11/7/13 91,484 17/9/13 95,900 4,416 Ltd 2 Prakasho Devi Saria 11-7-13 60,120 25-02-14 60,281 161 TOTAL 1,60,01,272 66,59,762 (93,41,510 (Rs.) The A/R of the assesse explained both verbally and in writing

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BAGRI SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2006-07 D.C.I.T., Circle-9, -Versus- M/S. Bagrees Investments Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaccb 1528 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 J.C.I.T., (Osd)Circle-9, -Versus- M/S. Bagri Synthetics Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaccb 9912 A) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Jcit. Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Gautam Banerjee, Ca Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 11 .01.2017

section 50C of the Act and accordingly worked out the capital gain for the year under consideration. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A), who has confirmed the order of AO after giving relief to the assessee in part. Aggrieved by this, the revenue has come up in appeal before us. M/s. Bagrees Investments P.Ltd & M/s. Bagri Synthetics

DCIT, CIRCLE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BAGREES INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2006-07 D.C.I.T., Circle-9, -Versus- M/S. Bagrees Investments Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaccb 1528 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 J.C.I.T., (Osd)Circle-9, -Versus- M/S. Bagri Synthetics Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaccb 9912 A) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Jcit. Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Gautam Banerjee, Ca Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 11 .01.2017

section 50C of the Act and accordingly worked out the capital gain for the year under consideration. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A), who has confirmed the order of AO after giving relief to the assessee in part. Aggrieved by this, the revenue has come up in appeal before us. M/s. Bagrees Investments P.Ltd & M/s. Bagri Synthetics

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

207), the 4 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 property was sold on 19.03.2012 relevant to F.Y. 2011-12 vide registered sale deed at a total consideration of Rs.18,00,000/-. The registering authority adopted the value at Rs.28,14,411/-. As per the valuation report of the registered valuer, the FMV was taken at Rs.3

D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue as well as assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

capital gain of Rs.2,01,48,797/-. According to the assessee, no specific/direct expenses were incurred in relation to exempt income. However, the assessee company had determined the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of Rs.33,472/-. However, the AO did not accept the said stand of the assessee and disallowed proportionate management expenses under Rule 8D of the Rules

RUSSELL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD),CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue as well as assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

capital gain of Rs.2,01,48,797/-. According to the assessee, no specific/direct expenses were incurred in relation to exempt income. However, the assessee company had determined the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of Rs.33,472/-. However, the AO did not accept the said stand of the assessee and disallowed proportionate management expenses under Rule 8D of the Rules

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year. Section 215(5) defines what is 'assessed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year. Section 215(5) defines what is 'assessed