ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(29B) profit earned on sale of shares of companies sold after holding for more than a year is assessable as Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee submits that it has not resorted to any trading In M/s. Sri Ram Commercial Co. share & securities involving frequent transactions of purchase and sale, profit from which alone can be assessable

CAROLINA FOOD AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

364/-. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has filed a petition under sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court on 11.06.2015 and the same was admitted on 16.06.2015. The ld. Counsel submitted that the same was communicated to the Regional Director vide letter dated 17.06.2015. Thereafter the Regional Director issued

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI RATAN KUMAR SAHA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Acit, Cir-49(1&2), Kolkata 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Vs. Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Vs. 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax, 1961 Dated 30.12.2016. Consequent To That Another Cross Appeal Is Also Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 154/Kol/2020 Against The Same Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Enumerated As Under: Assessee’S Ground: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Grossly Unjustified In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,69,590/- Under The Head A.Y. 2014-15

section 50C of the IT Act. However, the assessee had not disclosed any such information in his return. A.Y. 2014-15 3. During the course of hearing, the assessee accepted the transaction as a case of transfer of property on relinquishment of assets or extinguishment of right to claim as the asset is an agricultural land the gain

SHRI RATAN KUMAR SAHA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1&2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Acit, Cir-49(1&2), Kolkata 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Vs. Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Vs. 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax, 1961 Dated 30.12.2016. Consequent To That Another Cross Appeal Is Also Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 154/Kol/2020 Against The Same Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Enumerated As Under: Assessee’S Ground: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Grossly Unjustified In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,69,590/- Under The Head A.Y. 2014-15

section 50C of the IT Act. However, the assessee had not disclosed any such information in his return. A.Y. 2014-15 3. During the course of hearing, the assessee accepted the transaction as a case of transfer of property on relinquishment of assets or extinguishment of right to claim as the asset is an agricultural land the gain

ACIT, CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. RESHMI P LOYALKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the Cross Objection of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain till 31.7.2012, copy of electricity bill of new residential houses and other relevant documents. The assessee stated that she looked out for a comparatively much smaller plot for building her residential house. Inspite of her best efforts, she could not locate a single plot of desired size at desired location. Hence she bought 3 adjacent plots of land

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

364 (Guj) and operative portion of the judgment is reproduced below:- “Therefore, it can be said that, current depreciation is deductible in the first place from the income of the business to which it relates. If such depreciation amount is in excess than the amount of the profits of that business, then such excess should be adjusted against the profits

M/S BHORUKA INVESTMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

capital gain on sale of shares at Rs60,84,416/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. In terms of section 14A of the Act, the assessee was obliged to disallow expenses which was debited in the profit and loss account and claimed as deduction while computing income from business and from the total income

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BHORUKA INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

capital gain on sale of shares at Rs60,84,416/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. In terms of section 14A of the Act, the assessee was obliged to disallow expenses which was debited in the profit and loss account and claimed as deduction while computing income from business and from the total income

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

364 In view of above the AO was of the view that business loss of Rs.2,81,91,249.00 from the business of silk fabric is the result of circular trading among the known/ related parties which are located at the same address of the assessee. Accordingly the AO issued show cause notice vide ITA No.1381-82/Kol/2016 A.Ys

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

364 In view of above the AO was of the view that business loss of Rs.2,81,91,249.00 from the business of silk fabric is the result of circular trading among the known/ related parties which are located at the same address of the assessee. Accordingly the AO issued show cause notice vide ITA No.1381-82/Kol/2016 A.Ys

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

capital work-in- progress and was never charged to the profit and loss account and, therefore, the provisions of section 43B of the Act are not applicable. We accordingly set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 17,29,58,525/-. Consequently ground no. 1 is allowed

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

capital work-in- progress and was never charged to the profit and loss account and, therefore, the provisions of section 43B of the Act are not applicable. We accordingly set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 17,29,58,525/-. Consequently ground no. 1 is allowed

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

capital work-in- progress and was never charged to the profit and loss account and, therefore, the provisions of section 43B of the Act are not applicable. We accordingly set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 17,29,58,525/-. Consequently ground no. 1 is allowed

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

capital work-in- progress and was never charged to the profit and loss account and, therefore, the provisions of section 43B of the Act are not applicable. We accordingly set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 17,29,58,525/-. Consequently ground no. 1 is allowed

ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. C D STEEL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013 14

capital asset of the partners of the firm and made credit entries of these amounts in their individual accounts. The question is whether the lapse of time and the debts getting barred in consequence, and the attitude of the assessee that he would not pay these amounts, and his refusal to show these amounts in his account books

M/S. CALCUTTA CRICKET & FOOTBALL CLUB,KOLKATA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(1). KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Capital Reserve Account. It is not at all clear to us as to how the figure of Rs. 2,26,35,440/- mentioned in the notice has been arrived at. We did not have any such income and the question of any under-assessment does not arise. l) Surplus, if any, from our mutual activities (though in fact there