BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

366 ITR 593, wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that where the assessee’s claim is allowed by the ld. Assessing Officer after conducting necessary enquiry and application of mind, then the order of assessment cannot be considered and held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under section 263 of the Act on the ground

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. NFAC, DELHI/ D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 36(2) had rightly claimed deduction of bad debts of Rs.27,90,726 and in that view of the matter the impugned disallowance being unsustainable on facts and in law deserves to be deleted.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they are heard

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 36(2) had rightly claimed deduction of bad debts of Rs.27,90,726 and in that view of the matter the impugned disallowance being unsustainable on facts and in law deserves to be deleted.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they are heard

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 36(2) had rightly claimed deduction of bad debts of Rs.27,90,726 and in that view of the matter the impugned disallowance being unsustainable on facts and in law deserves to be deleted.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they are heard

RYDAK ENTERPRISES & INVESTMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-7(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 1289/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Rydak Enterprises & Investment Ltd.,.......Appellant Century Towers, 4Th Floor, 45, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan: Aabcr4381D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Respondent Circle-7(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 8, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2024 O R D E R

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has discussed this issue in paragraph no. 4. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a long-term capital gain arose to the assessee after indexation was Rs.4,24,96,684/-. Thereafter he took note of the computation made by the assessee. It is available on page

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

366 of Factual PB]. This is higher\nthan the valuation price of Rs.90/share and therefore even going by the logic\npropounded by NFAC, there was no undervaluation of shares and thus it could not be\nalleged that the appellant had issued inadequate value of shares in lieu of the real estate\nundertaking received under the scheme of demergerto invoke

ASHOK VIKRAM PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

capital gain and other sources. We note that the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 20.00 Lacs from its saving bank account with Allahabad Bank, Raipur and again redeposited Rs. 19.75 Lacs on various dates. The gap between the withdrawals of the money and redeposits in the same bank account range between nine days to three months. The details of the cash

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

366 DELHI HCJ, and (x) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [[1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC)). 8 M/s Bandhan Bank Limited: AY: 2016-17 7. The appellant submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India (supra) is distinguishable. For the reason that the said decision only disallows fresh claim

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

366 (Kol) wherein para 10 and para 11 dealt with ‘shareholder activities and stewardship activities, respectively. The same are reproduced as under:- “10. Another aspect to be seen is as to whether the nature of services rendered should not in the nature of 'shareholder services'. If services are in the nature of 'share holder services', then such services should

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

366 (Kol) wherein para 10 and para 11 dealt with ‘shareholder activities and stewardship activities, respectively. The same are reproduced as under:- “10. Another aspect to be seen is as to whether the nature of services rendered should not in the nature of 'shareholder services'. If services are in the nature of 'share holder services', then such services should

M/S TDK INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

366 (Kolkata - Trib.), a copy of which has been submitted to us by the assessee. 25. We see no reason to take any view of the matter other than the view taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14. As the issue

M/S TDK INDIA PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

366\n(Kolkata - Trib.), a copy of which has been submitted to us by the assessee.\n25.\nWe see no reason to take any view of the matter other than the view taken by the\nDivision Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2009-10,\n2010

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital work in progress 20,201,473 NIL written off relating to abandoned project 6. We first take up the common issue relating to adjustment made towards disallowance of payment for intra group services, namely, IT services, export support services, management support services, which have been paid to its AE, TDK Electronic Components S.A. (‘TDK Malaga’). For the purpose

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital work in progress 20,201,473 NIL written off relating to abandoned project 6. We first take up the common issue relating to adjustment made towards disallowance of payment for intra group services, namely, IT services, export support services, management support services, which have been paid to its AE, TDK Electronic Components S.A. (‘TDK Malaga’). For the purpose