ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.K.B.K. FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. NOW KNOW AS AMBUJA NEOTIA HOLDINGS P LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

251/- 5. The ld. Assessing Officer after going through the submissions made by the assessee in this connection did not accept the claim made by the assessee for segregation of the sale price and allocating it @ Rs.30.80 per share towards managerial control. He assessed the whole consideration as a long-term capital gain. 6. Dissatisfied with the assessment order

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BIMALA DEVI PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

251/- 5. The ld. Assessing Officer after going through the submissions made by the assessee in this connection did not accept the claim made by the assessee for segregation of the sale price and allocating it @ Rs.30.80 per share towards managerial control. He assessed the whole consideration as a long-term capital gain. 6. Dissatisfied with the assessment order

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LIKHAMI COMMERCIAL COMPANY LTD. AMALGAMATED INTO CHOICEST ENTERPRISES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

251/- 5. The ld. Assessing Officer after going through the submissions made by the assessee in this connection did not accept the claim made by the assessee for segregation of the sale price and allocating it @ Rs.30.80 per share towards managerial control. He assessed the whole consideration as a long-term capital gain. 6. Dissatisfied with the assessment order

APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain against which assessee has suo moto offered ₹3.70 lakhs as disallowance under section 14A. However, Ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to explain why rule 8D should not be applied. Ld. CIT(A) also called for explanation in respect of deduction claimed under section 80G of ₹ 25.40 lakhs in view of section 115VL(ii). 3.4. In respect

ARCHANA BAID,SILCHAR, ASSAM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain of Rs. 6,34,000/- only. The difference of Rs. 26,75,340/- was added to the income shown in the return and the total income was assessed at Rs.33,52,340/-. The assessee could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A) since due compliance was not made. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer

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

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

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

capital gains) amounting to Rs. 68.64 lakhs, which upon enquiry by AO was found as bogus and fictitious and notice u/s 148 dated 29/07/2022 was issued (as per procedure ) , and reassessment proceedings were completed after considering all submissions of the assessee , by disallowing the claim of LTCG treating the same to be accommodation entries against commission paid to the entry

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.2543&2544/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata............................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Kaushalya Infra. Development Corp. Ltd.........…….....…..…..Respondent Hb-170, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Appearances By: Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.09.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.2543/Kol/2018 For Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2008. In The Said Assessment, The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ia(4) Of Rs.

251 which would indicate that the appellate authorities are confined to considering only the objections raised before them or allowed to be raised before them either by the assessee or by the I.T.A Nos.2543&2544/Kol/2018 Assessment years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s Kaushalya Infra. Development Corp. Ltd department, as the case may be. They can consider the entire proceedings

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.2543&2544/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata............................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Kaushalya Infra. Development Corp. Ltd.........…….....…..…..Respondent Hb-170, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Appearances By: Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.09.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.2543/Kol/2018 For Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2008. In The Said Assessment, The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ia(4) Of Rs.

251 which would indicate that the appellate authorities are confined to considering only the objections raised before them or allowed to be raised before them either by the assessee or by the I.T.A Nos.2543&2544/Kol/2018 Assessment years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s Kaushalya Infra. Development Corp. Ltd department, as the case may be. They can consider the entire proceedings

NIRANJAN KUMAR HIRJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-33(7) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

gains, interest income and share of profit from partnership concern. The assessee has brought forward short capital losses which were declared in the earlier returns of income and no adverse order disallowing or restricting the said losses were passed by the Ld. AO. During the year, the assessee claimed the set off of brought forward long term capital losses

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

251 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that information received from the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Kolkata revealed regarding accommodation entries of bogus LTCG/STCG/Business Loss booked by the assessee by trading in penny stock of Blue Print Securities Limited. As per information received, the entities involved in eh transaction are the syndicate members

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

251(2) of the Act to the ICC by treating the entire income/receipts of the ICC as business receipt and taxed the same at the rate applicable to the companies. The ld CIT(A) by doing so rejected the methodology adopted by the AO of bifurcating the total receipts into business and charitable one. Now the issue before us whether

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), EXEMPTION , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

251(2) of the Act to the ICC by treating the entire income/receipts of the ICC as business receipt and taxed the same at the rate applicable to the companies. The ld CIT(A) by doing so rejected the methodology adopted by the AO of bifurcating the total receipts into business and charitable one. Now the issue before us whether

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

251(2) of the Act to the ICC by treating the entire income/receipts of the ICC as business receipt and taxed the same at the rate applicable to the companies. The ld CIT(A) by doing so rejected the methodology adopted by the AO of bifurcating the total receipts into business and charitable one. Now the issue before us whether

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

251(2) of the Act to the ICC by treating the entire income/receipts of the ICC as business receipt and taxed the same at the rate applicable to the companies. The ld CIT(A) by doing so rejected the methodology adopted by the AO of bifurcating the total receipts into business and charitable one. Now the issue before us whether

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIA FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),EXEMPT, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

251(2) of the Act to the ICC by treating the entire income/receipts of the ICC as business receipt and taxed the same at the rate applicable to the companies. The ld CIT(A) by doing so rejected the methodology adopted by the AO of bifurcating the total receipts into business and charitable one. Now the issue before us whether

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

251(2) of the Act to the ICC by treating the entire income/receipts of the ICC as business receipt and taxed the same at the rate applicable to the companies. The ld CIT(A) by doing so rejected the methodology adopted by the AO of bifurcating the total receipts into business and charitable one. Now the issue before us whether

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

251(2) of the Act to the ICC by treating the entire income/receipts of the ICC as business receipt and taxed the same at the rate applicable to the companies. The ld CIT(A) by doing so rejected the methodology adopted by the AO of bifurcating the total receipts into business and charitable one. Now the issue before us whether