HARI RAM AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.2363/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Hari Ram Agarwal Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Acdpa 1946 N]

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee claimed long term capital gains from transactions in shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL). The assessee on 1.3.2012 purchased 50000 shares of the face value of Rs.1 each in Careful Projects Advisory Limited (CPAL) through off market from M/s. Needful Vincom

MANISH KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the first issue as has been recorded by the ld AO in the Assessment Order are that the assessee claimed long term capital gains from transactions in shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL). The ld AO found that the assessee, on 20.12.2011, purchased 240000 shares

MAHENDRA KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the first issue as has been recorded by the ld AO in the Assessment Order are that the assessee claimed long term capital gains from transactions in shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL). The ld AO found that the assessee, on 20.12.2011, purchased 240000 shares

DIVYA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Itat Through The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

234A, 234B and 234C are mechanically wrong and illegal. 6. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A. No.555/Kol/2024 Divya Dugar 2. Before us the Ld. AR has argued that the action of Ld. AO amounts to a double addition as the claiming

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 461/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Britannia Industries Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata 5/1A, Hungerford Street Vs Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata - 700017 [Pan: Aabcb2066P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kush Kanodia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Suo Moto Computed & Disallowed Sum Of Rs.14,10,610/- Which Inter Alia Included Sum Of Rs.14,19,009/- Computed In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Being 1% Of The Value Of Tax Free Investments & Therefore The Ao Had Factually Erred In Holding That The Aforesaid Voluntary Disallowance Represented Disallowance Offered By Way Of Direct Expenditure U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D(2)(I) & Thereby Wrongly Computed Further Disallowance Of Rs.13,32,000/- In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

capital gain by taking the value of the cost of investments sold in accordance with FIFO Method, as mandated by Section 45(2A) of the Act. 7. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified on facts and in law in denying the deduction of Rs.11.07

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234A amounting to Rs. 38,394 is liable to be summarily rejected. 3. Impugned levying interest under section 234B amounting to Rs. 1,72,773. The Learned Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, has passed the order under section 154 in ignoring the foreign tax credit amounting to Rs 6,39,970 resulting into a tax on unjustified denial

RAJ KUMAR GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains and income from other sources. Section 14-A relates to expenditure incurred in relation to income which are not includable in total income and which are exempted from tax. No taxes are therefore levied on such exempted income. Section 14-A had been incorporated in the Income Tax Act to ensure that expenditure incurred in generating such tax exempted

PRAHLAD DUTT LATA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

sections 234A amounting to Rs.61,780 (Rs.61,600 as per order u/s 154/144) and u/s 234B amounting to Rs.5,26,996 (as per order u/s 154/144) has been wrongly charged. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add to or modify the grounds off appeal on or before the final hearing of the appeal.” 5. Facts in brief are that

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

234A of the Act. 11. That the Impugned Order erred in not deleting interest levied under section 234B of the Act. 12. That the Impugned Order erred in not deleting interest levied under section 234D of the Act 13. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section

NEELAM DUGAR ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 35(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1530/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar,......................................Appellant 75, Bbd Road, Eliza 3, 4Th Floor, Hindmotor, Hooghly-712233 [Pan: Ahhpd6956A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-35(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri A.N. Keshri, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 18.04.2018 Passed For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Five Grounds Of Appeal. In Ground No. 1, She Has Submitted That Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.69,57,000/-, Which Was Added By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 1 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar 68 Of The Income Tax Act. In Ground No. 2, She Has Pleaded That Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,66,794/- & In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged Charging Of Interest Under Section 234A & 234B Of The Income Tax Act. In Grounds No. 4 & 5, The Assessee Has Raised Supporting Argument Qua Earlier Three Grounds Of Appeal.

capital gain was a bogus one, therefore, this commission payment is also to be disallowed and required to be added back. The ld. Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition, which has been confirmed by the ld. 14 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar 1st Appellate Authority. We do not find any merit in this ground of appeal also

GOURANGA CEMENT PVT. LTD.,BARAKAR vs. DCIT, CIR-3, BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in terms of above

gain during the year. 4. For that the Ld. AO in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in charging interest for Rs.1,598/- u/s. 234A and Rs.3,71,166/- u/s. 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.330/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Gournga Cement Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Cir-3 Bankura Page 2 5. For that

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234A of the Act to the tune of Rs. 3,83,625. 7. Erroneous Levy of Interest under section 234B of the Act 7.1 The Ld. AO has erred in levying erroneous interest under section 234B of the Act to the tune of Rs. 47,617. Prayer i. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend, alter, modify

KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Capital gains - Short Term: Rs. 22,10,705/- (b) (c) Income from Other Sources: Rs.36,29,000/- (d) Total Income ; Rs.1,08,02,162/- R/Off to : Rs.1,08,02,160/- The tax liability thereon after adjustment of MAT credit available and interest was Rs.25,09,840/- which was fully met. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore (Assessing Officer) sent a communication dated

HITT HOLLAND INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY B. V. vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 574/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic -Vs.- D.D.I.T. (Intl.T)-1, Technology B.V., Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabch 5694 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ar For The Respondent : Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

gains of business or profession" in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Invoking the aforesaid provisions the AO attributed 50% of the receipts from providing services as income chargeable to tax in India as per Sec.44DA of the Act. 12. Before DRP the Assessee submitted that the assesse had setup a Project Office (PO) in India

ITO,WARD-41(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBRATA SAHA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

capital gains earned from the redemption of mutual funds for Rs.8,51,641/-. The appellant having explained the source of investment in mutual funds, I therefore hold that the addition of Rs.78,60,000/- on account of investment in mutual fund was not justified and therefore the addition of Rs.78,60,000/- on account of investment in mutual fund

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

234A of the Act. 10. Interest under section 234B 10.1 The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 39,96,22,576 under section 234B of the Act. 11. Interest under section 234D 11.1. The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,61,67,498 under section 234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

234A of the Act. 10. Interest under section 234B 10.1 The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 39,96,22,576 under section 234B of the Act. 11. Interest under section 234D 11.1. The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,61,67,498 under section 234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A

AVR STORAGE TANK TERMINALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

capital gains chargeable to income-tax as per the revised computation furnished by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the NFAC erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation as per the revised computation of depreciation furnished by the appellant during the course