OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

capital gains tax as per provisionsof Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act and erroneously proceeded on such unwarranted assumption wrongfully and illegallyattributed to the assessee's Counsel?" Let the Paper Book be filed within 8 weeks from date. Let the appeal be listed for hearing 12 weeks hence. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy

MUSHTAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-40(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 147 of the Act on the ground of escaped assessment for non-disclosure of capital gain arising from compensation received from land acquisition by the Collector ,Distt Arwal for construction of Arwal Sahar approach road for acquiring non-agricultural land. The assessee received total compensation of Rs.91,62,720/- on which TDS of Rs.9,18,270

BIG BOSS FOODS PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR. 1, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

270, 11 ITA no.4033/Del./2011 7.5 In Vareli W eavers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (1999) 240 ITR 77 (Guj) also notices under section 148 read with section 147 of the Act were quashed by the Hon'ble High Court, there being no whisper in the reasons recorded by the AO about failure on the part of the assessee to disclose

HEM LATA JHUNJHUNWALA ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-11(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gain etc. Return was originally filed u/s. 139(1) reporting total income of Rs.34,05,980/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO issued notice u/s. 148 dated 28.03.2018 by recording reasons to believe that information was received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit-3(1), Kolkata with regard to systematic evasion of taxes by clients/members of the National Multi Commodity Exchange (NMCE) during different

HEM LATA JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gain etc. Return was originally filed u/s. 139(1) reporting total income of Rs.34,05,980/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO issued notice u/s. 148 dated 28.03.2018 by recording reasons to believe that information was received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit-3(1), Kolkata with regard to systematic evasion of taxes by clients/members of the National Multi Commodity Exchange (NMCE) during different

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

ROSHAN AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, GANGTOK

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

capital gain and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act are also covered in favour of the assessee as the income from all sources in the State of Sikkim is exempt. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. 15. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 35,00,056/- as made

ROSHAN AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, GANGTOK

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

capital gain and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act are also covered in favour of the assessee as the income from all sources in the State of Sikkim is exempt. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. 15. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 35,00,056/- as made

ROSHAN AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, GANGTOK

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

capital gain and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act are also covered in favour of the assessee as the income from all sources in the State of Sikkim is exempt. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. 15. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 35,00,056/- as made

ROSHAN AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, GANGTOK

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

capital gain and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act are also covered in favour of the assessee as the income from all sources in the State of Sikkim is exempt. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. 15. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 35,00,056/- as made

ROSHAN AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, GANGTOK

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

capital gain and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act are also covered in favour of the assessee as the income from all sources in the State of Sikkim is exempt. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. 15. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 35,00,056/- as made

DECPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CHIRAG JEWELLERS, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1559/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-3(1) Chirag Jewellers 110, Shantipally, Flat 17A, Rameshwara Mansion, 10/4A Vs Kolkata-700107 Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 West Bengal [Pan : Aabfc7914L] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

capital gains in their file. shared the names of the Managing There is no mention of our Director and other Directors of M/s transaction in this statement NCL Research and Financial Services and nor are the loans given Ltd and the also took name of one by this company stated to Manish Baid, the alleged key person of be bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUBLIME AGRO LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

gains of business or profession”. On perusal of the above provision, it is clear that, in order to qualify for deduction under section 37 of the Act, the expenditure should satisfy the following conditions:  Expenditure should not fall within the ambit of between Section 30 to 36 of the Act  Expenditure should be incurred or expended wholly and exclusively

M/S TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKAA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital work-in progress solely on the assumption that there existed separate earmarked- funds and the assessee had used those instead of non- earmarked funds or general income. 2.4. The Ld. CIT(E) grossly erred in directing the AO to make an addition of INR 169.03 Lacs in the nature of waiver of treatment charges. 2.5. That

DIDU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

270/-was received from Shree Cement Limited, which are long-standing strategic investments, for which no day to day monitoring or market research was required. Further, investments made and sold during the year predominantly pertains to Group companies for which no substantial market research or active management intervention is required. Hence, the assumption of AO and Ld. CIT(A), that