PARASHNATH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

capital gain as envisaged in section 2(14) of the I.T. Act. 7. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong by confirming the charging of interest u/s. 234B and 234C amounting to Rs.303,672/- and Rs.63,899/- which are completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 8. For that the appellant reserves the right

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

234B amounting to Rs. 1,72,773 is liable to be summarily rejected. 4. Impugned levying interest under section 234C amounting to Rs. 32,317. 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

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

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 or rescind the grounds of appeal stated herein above before or at any time of hearing of the appeal. ii. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another

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:

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

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

234B of the Act. 19. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred and unjustified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/ AO has not considered the benefit of variation / deduction

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

234B of the Act. 19. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred and unjustified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/ AO has not considered the benefit of variation / deduction

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.

234B of the Income Tax Act. In Grounds No. 4 & 5, the assessee has raised supporting argument qua earlier three grounds of appeal. 3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the assessment record would reveal that assesese has filed her original return of income on 19.03.2015 declaring total income

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

capital gains of Rs. 2,30,238/- from of sale of equity share and equity-oriented fund, while giving effect to the Impugned Order. Page 3 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 41/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Santanu Sanyal. 9. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in not granting exemption under Section 10(34) on dividend income

UNIVERSAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3. The Ld. CIT(A) held that sub-section (2A) of Section 115JAA only speaks about tax credit and does not mention cess and therefore upheld the order I.T.A. No.: 223/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Universal Trading Company Limited. of the CPC. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before your Honours

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

Gains amounting to Rs.31,64,785/- and instead sustaining an addition of Rs. 33 Lakhs being the gross sale proceeds of shares ignoring the facts and evidences produced by the appellant before the A.O. 3. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) sustaining disallowance of payment of Interest paid amounting to Rs.3,01,034 claimed by the assessee

METSO OYJ,FINLAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B was not applicable on the Appellant 5. Initiation of penalty, under section 270A of the Act 5.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in proposing to initiate penalty under section 270A of the Act. 6. That the Appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw

SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

section 234B & 234C. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated here-in-above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of financing, bill discounting, investment

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

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the NFAC erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to determine the 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

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

ITO, KOLKATA vs. AJIT KUMAR MINDA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the\nassessee are dismissed

3) of the Act on 20.04.2017 wherein the assessee's claim\nu/s 10(38) of the Act specifically considered and accepted. Subsequently,\nthe reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the\nassessment are based on the same material that was already available at\nthe time of original assessment. There was no allegation that any fresh\ntangible material

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

capital gain. In view of the above order, ground no. 1 & 2 is hereby dismissed. 7. In ground no. 3, the assessee stated that the ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law charging interest u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 4,07,238/- and Rs. 6821/- u/s 234C of the Act are not correct and view taken

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. IT0, WD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

capital gain. In view of the above order, ground no. 1 & 2 is hereby dismissed. 7. In ground no. 3, the assessee stated that the ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law charging interest u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 4,07,238/- and Rs. 6821/- u/s 234C of the Act are not correct and view taken

TAMAL KUNDU,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 37, , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 1797/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

234B of the Act.” 3. Apart from this, assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal:- “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without considering the stamp duty value