EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

gain of Rs 7,18,74,000/- in the facts of the case. The ld AO is accordingly directed to give benefit of the same to the assessee based on the correctness of the claim of brought forward loss figure made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 5.1 & 5.2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2004-05 Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd. -Versus- C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaecs 0445G) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

sections dealing with the computation of capital gain viz., Sec. 2(14) Capital Assets, Sec. 2(42A) Short Term Capital Assets and Explanation (iii) to Sec. 48 indexed cost of acquisition, the term used is 'held' and not' owner' or 'owned'. According to him therefore, for the purpose of determining date of acquisition in computing long term capital gain, absolute

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

239/- Less: Miscellaneous 2,715/- 6,50,51,565/- Add: Unexplained 2,12,857/- adjustment of interest (refer para 2 above) Long Term Capital Gains 9,91,00,694/- 3 Bani Broto Banerjee 5. Dissatisfied with this working, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has accepted the contention

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

M/S TITAGARH INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY M/S BHATPARA PAPERS LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 50(2), Capital WIP did not form part of block of assets and for that reason did not qualify to be called Capital Asset. In his opinion the cost of Capital WIP could not be taken into account in arriving at short term capital gain chargeable u/s 50 of the Act. In his opinion the subject matter of sale

ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(29B) profit earned on sale of shares of companies sold after holding for more than a year is assessable as Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee submits that it has not resorted to any trading In M/s. Sri Ram Commercial Co. share & securities involving frequent transactions of purchase and sale, profit from which alone can be assessable

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

section 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 12,86,00,032/-. 7. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, the Assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

DCIT(EXAMPTION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAA SARASWATI GYAN MANDIR EDUCATION SOCIETY , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2002/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit(Exemption), Circle- Vs. Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir 1(1), Kolkata

capital gains qualify for exemption u/s 11 (1A) of the Act. 11. Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 7 Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir Education Society Assessment Year:2012-13 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing administrative and establishment expenses

ITO, WARD - 42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUSHIL SARKAR, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

section 50C of the Act and found the stamp duty valuation of the assessee share in the above stated transaction for an amount of Rs. 75,37,100.00. Accordingly the AO worked out the tax liability of long term capital gain by taking the sale consideration as stamp duty valuation minus the indexed cost of acquisition. The assessee demonstrated before

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

Section 54 of the Act, the assessee can claim the exemption/deduction for the investment in the new house which is purchased one year prior to the date of sale or has been purchased two years from the date of sale or has constructed a house within three years from the date of sale which has given rise to the capital

SUBRATA DAW,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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 for the assessment year 2012-13. However, the AO referred to DVO the fair market value of property as on 01.04.1981 and DVO estimated it at Rs.1,15,34,144/- for the entire joint property. Thus, the value as on 01.04.1981 on assessee’s 1/4th share was at Rs.28,83,536/- (without indexation). After getting the report

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

239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11 decided by an order dated September 13, 2017 (Page

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

239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11 decided by an order dated September 13, 2017 (Page

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

239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11 decided by an order dated September 13, 2017 (Page