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

245 ITR 428 (SC) has allowed this kind of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the order is produced below:- “Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expenditure – Year in which deductible – Assessment year 1978-79 – Whether if a business liability has definitely arisen in accounting year, deduction should be allowed although

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

245 ITR 428 (SC) has allowed this kind of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the order is produced below:- “Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expenditure – Year in which deductible – Assessment year 1978-79 – Whether if a business liability has definitely arisen in accounting year, deduction should be allowed although

ACIT, 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

245 ITR 428 (SC) has allowed this kind of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the order is produced below:- “Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expenditure – Year in which deductible – Assessment year 1978-79 – Whether if a business liability has definitely arisen in accounting year, deduction should be allowed although

LAKSHMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD37(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.01/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, “Sparsh”4Th Floor, 35/8, Ward-37(3), Kolkata- Poddopukur Road, Kolkata- 700001 700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acvpa 3271 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Subhro Das, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2004-2005, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, In Appeal No.1219/Cit(A)- Xxiv/Set-Aside/37(3)/12-13, Dated 19.12.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee’S Income Tax Return For Assessment Year 2004-05 Was Assessed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Ao Detected That The Assessee Invested In A Property & Not Shown The Amount Of Capital Gain Of Rs.13,45,760/-. Therefore, The Ao Presumed That There Was An Excess Claim Of Rs.13,45,760/- U/S.54F Of It Act. Hence, Believing The Reason That Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment For The Year, The Ao Has Issued Notice U/S.148/147 Of The It Act. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Invested In A Property & Thus Claimed The Excess Amount

capital gains is not to be brought to tax, but the unspent amount/figure is taxed. [Para 13] • In view of the aforesaid position, no substantial question of law arises and thus the present appeal is dismissed. [ Para 14]” 7.4 Hence, we are convinced that there is no case for the ld.AO to disturb the claim of exemption

KUSUM MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-44(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kusum Mohta............................…..…….……………………..……………………………………………….…..Appellant 5/2, Ram Krishna Lane Bagbazar Kolkata – 700 003 [Pan : Ahmpm 9143 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-44(3), Kolkata.................................……...…………………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vikas Sharma, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 14Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 20Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

245 of 2014). In case the assessee had handed over the possession of the land to the builder on 09/11/2004, then the capital gain can be brought to tax only in the Assessment Year 2005-06 and not in this year. 4.2.1. If the assessee had not handed over physical possession of the property to the builder on 4/11/2004, then

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2005-06

Section 438 of the Act states that sum will be allowed only on actual payment. According to the AO, the Leave Encashment was not actually paid by the Assessee but the liability was written back. Any waiver or write back or allowing benefit to the party could not be called payment. The claim of reduction from the computation of income

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

KESHAV SARAF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-15, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Gains or Short Term capital loss by various beneficiaries. 9.2 .Moreover, the A.O. also did not consider other surrounding circumstances such as no worthwhile profit or dividend paying record of the said CCL International Ltd. in the past years to command such fancy valuation / rise in its share price from Rs. 91/- per share in December, 2013 to an average

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

capital gain income in the revised return of income which is within the provisions of the law. As such the AO has not brought any defect in the books of accounts and in the revised return. The assessee has been showing investments in the audited financial statements. The ld. DR has also not brought anything on record to controvert

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

capital gain income in the revised return of income which is within the provisions of the law. As such the AO has not brought any defect in the books of accounts and in the revised return. The assessee has been showing investments in the audited financial statements. The ld. DR has also not brought anything on record to controvert

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 gain income in the revised return of income which is within the provisions of the law. As such the AO has not brought any defect in the books of accounts and in the revised return. The assessee has been showing investments in the audited financial statements. The ld. DR has also not brought anything on record to controvert

ITO, WARD-40(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. PUSHPA DEVI SETHIA, KOLKATA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, V/S. Smt. Pushpa Devi Sethia Ward-40(4), 3, Govt. 2, Ramlochan Mullick Place (West), 2Nd Street, Kolkata-73 Floor, Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Ajvps 2277D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Aryan Kochar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 24-08-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.07.2016, Passed In Case No.66/Cit(A)-12/W-40(4)/Kol//2015-16, In Both Quashing The Re-Assessment In Question To Be Illegal As Well As Deleting Long Term Capital Gains Addition Of ₹95,22,372/- Made By The Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S. 147 Rw.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion In Quashing Impugned Re-Opening As Well As Deleting The Impugned Addition Of Long Term Capital Gains On Merit Reads As Under:- “3.2 I Have Carefully Considered The Submissions Of The Appellant & The Assessment Order. Facts Are That An Assessment U/S. 143(3) Was

245/-. One set of profit & loss account and balance sheets as on 31.03.2008 has been filed. In the outset, the A/R has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and consequent issue of notice u/s. 148. It is the contention of the A/R that notice was issued after four years from the end of assessment year

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 263( 1) was justified. • Raimandir Estates (P) Ltd Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/(2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP against High Court's ruling that where assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital, raised huge sum on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining

DCIT,CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

section 2(42A) of the Act, the Board, in case of transactions take place directly between the parties and not through stock exchanges, the date of contract for sale as declared by the parties shall be treated as the date of transfer, provided it is followed up by actual delivery of shares and the transfer deeds. In view of this

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

section 2(42A) of the Act, the Board, in case of transactions take place directly between the parties and not through stock exchanges, the date of contract for sale as declared by the parties shall be treated as the date of transfer, provided it is followed up by actual delivery of shares and the transfer deeds. In view of this

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

section 2(42A) of the Act, the Board, in case of transactions take place directly between the parties and not through stock exchanges, the date of contract for sale as declared by the parties shall be treated as the date of transfer, provided it is followed up by actual delivery of shares and the transfer deeds. In view of this

I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHAL EQUITY SERVICES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the of the revenue is dismissed

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

245 HA he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; and as per section 251(1)(b) while deciding an appeal against imposition of penalty, he may confirm or cancel such order or vary it so as either to enhance or to reduce the penalty; and as per section 251 (1)(c), while deciding any other appeal which does

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

capital gain income on account of sale of shares under section 10(38) of the Act though the assessee has not paid STT on the sale of such shares. The assessee in compliance thereto submitted that there is no such mistake in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. However the AO subsequently dropped the proceedings initiated

D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAUD TEA & SEED CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1325/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 D.C.I.T., Cir-4, Kolkata .............................………………………….........................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 M/S. Maud Tea & Seed Co. Ltd……………………………………………….........Respondent 2, N.C. Dutta Sarani, Sagar Estate, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aaccm0710C] Appearances By: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 13, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata Dated 28.02.2013. 2. The Common Issue Involved In Ground No 1 To 3 Of This Appeal Relates To The Determination Of The Long Term Capital Gain From The Land Sold By The Assessee Company. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Growing, Manufacturing & Selling Of Tea. During The Year Under Consideration It Sold 132 Bighas Of Sewpur Tea Estate Land For A Consideration Of Rs. 9,07,20,000/- To Tinsukia Development Authority (As) Vide An Agreement Dated 18.08.2008. The Fair Market

section 55(2)(b)(ii) has to be taken at Rs. 78,61,672/- as claimed by the assessee since the same was worked out by the assessee by reverse calculation after considering the value of present day land and this method or basis followed by the assessee is not correct. In our opinion, the fair market value