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 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 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

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

BASTUHARA SAHAYATA SAMITI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

gained in any manner whatsoever by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation and was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). The assessee was not negligent in filing the appeal but for some unavoidable reasons and circumstances, no step was possible to be taken for filing

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOVIND COMMERCIAL CO. 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. 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

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. GAYATRI NEOTIA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SURESH KUMAR NEOTIA, 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

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

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

251 (Mad)], (vi) CIT v. Ashok Kurien, [2016 (11) TMI 122 Bombay HC], (vii) PCIT v. Gujarat Gas Trading Co. Ltd., [2016 (6) TMI 599 Gujarat HC] (viii) CIT v. Faze Three Ltd., [2017 (3) TMI 1390-Bombay HC], (ix) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd., [2011 (11) TMI 366 DELHI HCJ, and (x) National Thermal Power

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.

2) of the Act, the aggregate amount of deduction in Chapter VIA shall not in any case cross the gross total income of the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival contention and gone through the record. A perusal of the aforesaid reproduced operating part of the order of this Tribunal dated 08.11.2016 would reveal that the Tribunal had observed