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

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

Section 251(2) of the Act specifically provides that the Appellate Commissioner shall not enhance an assessment unless the appellant before him is given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), we find that there is no mention in the order that any such opportunity of being

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

Section 251(2) of the Act specifically provides that the Appellate Commissioner shall not enhance an assessment unless the appellant before him is given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), we find that there is no mention in the order that any such opportunity of being

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

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. 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), 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 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 UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains, taxable u/s 45 of the Act and realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external development over a long period of time. r a long period of time

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

2)(vii) of the Act. He subm the taxability of the compensation u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He submits that the averments of its that the averments of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views

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)

251,074 Less :- Indexed cost of acquisition (Note 1) 34,419,420 Long-term Capital Gain/(Loss) (3,168,346) Note-1 Indexed cost of acquisition is determined as under :- Estimated Fair market value of Land as on 01-04-1981 (Year of acquisition – 1971) [As per valuation report attached] 7,434,000 Indexed cost of acquisition

SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar -Versus- D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1) Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Aftpp 2386 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Counsel, Sri Ronak G.Doshi & Shri A.K.Gupta, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Special Counsel & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-2, Kolkata Dated 10.07..2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘ Act’ ) Dated 30.12.2016 Was Confirmed.

2) of Section 254 of the Act also is restricted. 62. The powers under Section 254 of the Act with the Tribunal to pass such Orders 'as it thinks fit' cannot be lesser than the powers conferred upon the lower and first Appellate Authority, viz., the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) who under Section 251

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 47(v) Rs. 5,45,100/- (ii) Cost u/s 55(2)(b)(b)(ii) as on 01.04.1981 as per Rs. 1,35,38,000/- valuation report of Er. S K Bhagat, FIE(India) (iii) Conversion cost paid for making land & building Rs. 2,39,05,168/- freehold On 08.10.2010- Rs. 2

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 47(v) Rs. 5,45,100/- (ii) Cost u/s 55(2)(b)(b)(ii) as on 01.04.1981 as per Rs. 1,35,38,000/- valuation report of Er. S K Bhagat, FIE(India) (iii) Conversion cost paid for making land & building Rs. 2,39,05,168/- freehold On 08.10.2010- Rs. 2

M/S. LEND LEASE COMPANY (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 526/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2005-06

251 of the Act seek to make any investigation on the question whether the income was short term capital gain or income from business. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions : a) R.K.Dave vs ITO (2005) 94 TTJ 19 (Jodhpur) wherein it was held that the powers

SHREE PADMASAGAR EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

2) of the Act was issued. The assessee has declared its income from STCG at ₹ 88,05,787/- and Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG for short) of ₹8,45,589/-. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has done dealing in more than 251 scripts involving frequent transactions of purchase and sale of share. Besides

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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 Gains. 12. We note that in this case the assessee has claimed the benefit of set off of losses and carry forward of losses of the demerged undertaking by virtue of section 72A( 4) of the Act and not u/s 72(1), section 73(2) section 73A(2) or sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) of section