EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 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 Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

capital gain of Rs 7,18,74,000/- in the facts of the case. The ld AO is accordingly directed to give benefit of the same to the assessee based on the correctness of the claim of brought forward loss figure made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 5.1 & 5.2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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]

Section 56(2)(vii) of the that the department has conceded the ground of taxability under Section 56(2)(vii) of the that the department has conceded the ground of taxability under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 10.4. The ld. CIT D/R further submitted that the power

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SURYA PRAKASH TOSHNIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-41(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06 Surya Prakash Toshniwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Huf, C/O. Narendra Goyal Ward-41(3), 3 & Co., 16, N.S. Road, 2Nd, Government Place, Floor, Kolkata-700 001 Kolkata-7001 [Pan No.Aaghs 7032 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain of the assessee. The AO should have issued notices and summons to M/s RFL and ACPL under section 133(6) and 131 of the Act for the production of the necessary financial information before rejecting the claim of the assessee. We find that all the necessary information which were available with the assessee had been brought on record

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

capital gain / loss/trading loss by price rigging and manipulation on the stock exchange platform. The ld. Assessing Officer also referred to the enquiries conducted by the SEBI and the Investigation Wing of the Deptt in which it was found that some brokers have manipulated and rigged the share prices in order to give undue benefit to the beneficiaries

NALANDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

Section 56(2)(x)of the Act are not applicable which provides that where the market value of the property is more than the sale consideration received by the assessee then the difference between the two shall be considered. The case of the assessee finds support from the decisions of the coordinate benches in the Sandeep Patil ITA No.924/Bang/2020, John

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted while disallowance of indir4ect expenses of Rs.1,82,346/- by application of Rule 8D()(iii) upheld with the direction to allow relief of the sum already disallowed by the appellant itself. On appeal preferred by the Revenue the Tribunal held as followed:- ‘We have heard rival submissions and gone through

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted while disallowance of indir4ect expenses of Rs.1,82,346/- by application of Rule 8D()(iii) upheld with the direction to allow relief of the sum already disallowed by the appellant itself. On appeal preferred by the Revenue the Tribunal held as followed:- ‘We have heard rival submissions and gone through

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted while disallowance of indir4ect expenses of Rs.1,82,346/- by application of Rule 8D()(iii) upheld with the direction to allow relief of the sum already disallowed by the appellant itself. On appeal preferred by the Revenue the Tribunal held as followed:- ‘We have heard rival submissions and gone through

INFINITY INFOTECH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

gain the Commissioner of Income Tax did not recommend filing of second appeal against CIT(A)'s said finding. It will therefore be appreciated that in the AY 2007-08 the administrative CIT in principle accepted that the Assessee's IT Park building was its "depreciable asset. The CIT however recommended the appeal against the relief allowed

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)

capital gain of the assessee. The AO should have issued notices and summons to M/s RFL and ACPL under section 133(6) and 131 of the Act for the production of the necessary financial information before rejecting the claim of the assessee. We find that all the necessary information which were available with the assessee had been brought on record

NIKUNJ DHANUKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

282 of the Act. 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reopening proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the proceeding initiated u/s 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1359/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 0993 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

282/- and the balance income is from units of mutual fund of Rs 1,49,34,415/- ; profit on investment in shares of Rs 1,13,56,022/- and profit from Gold Exchange Traded Fund of Rs 17,73,752/-. The assessee suffered loss of Rs 69,97,401/- on derivative transactions. The assessee disclosed short term capital gains

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]

Capital gain. 5.8 As discussed above, the claim of receipt of sale proceeds of the scrip of M/s Unno Industries Ltd.ofRs.53,63,5181-was found to be an accommodation entry of LTCG earned by the assessee, being the beneficiary. It is clear that the unaccounted money of the assessee was brought back in the books through bogus LTCG

THE BARANAGAR JUTE FACTORY PLC,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1149/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Baranagar Jute Factory Plc Principal Cit-1, Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite-213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aabct0134C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri G.H. Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pr. Cit”], Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 28/03/2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit U/S 263 Of The Act Through The Various Grounds Of Appeal. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dt. 31/03/2016. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Upon Perusal Of The Assessment Records, Observed That The Assessing Officer Has Not Examined The Four Issues Which Were Discussed By The Ld. Pr. Cit In The Revisionary Order Which Are Extracted Below:- “2. On A Perusal Of The Assessment Record Of The Assessee, It Was Observed As Under:

Section 145A(b) of the Act, is not correct. 4.2. The ld. A/R submitted that nature of interest on enhanced compensation of land partook the character of long term capital gain and not income from other sources as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in 128 Taxman

SANJIB KUMAR PATWARI (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2268,2269&2270/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16) Shri Sanjay Kumar Patwari Vs. Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata (Huf) Flat No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Banyan Tree, 3A, Rowdan Street, Kolkata-700017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aashs 7307 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(2) of the Act, by the Department, on the ground of suspicious share transaction in penny stock. In the return of income, the assessee has claimed exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act for long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The details of which are given below: Sale value