DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

gain by taking the full value of consideration of Rs.8,18,36,300/- to arrive at a figure of Rs.5,29,39,153/-. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), it was contended by the assessee that it was allotted right to use the leasehold property by MIDC. The property was neither

UTTAM DAS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Gain or Short-Term Capital Loss is baseless and devoid of any application of mind. The only transaction that the assessee had in the scrip of Global Capital Markets Limited was that of purchase of 5,000 shares on 28.03.2011 and another 5000 shares on 29.03.2011. The same may be verified from the Contract Note issued by the broker - Motilal

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

391/- by the end of the year 2014. Revenue authorities have only taken into account the date of conveyance deed. In our considered view, the assessee has applied the consideration received from the long term capital gain in question, for the purchase of residential flat at Gurgaon within stipulated time limit as provided

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. MILESTONE FINSTOCK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..…………..………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd..……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 62A, Hazra Road, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aaccm0280B] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N S Saini, Ar & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Of The Cit(Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 1075 Days & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are As Under: Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd

391/- and further as on 31.03.2012, the assessee had an amount of Rs.11,03,57,989/- as interest-free funds in the form of share capital and reserves and surplus. Therefore, the interest-free funds available with the assessee company are much more in comparison to the advances made. We find that in this context, the Ld. CIT (A) relied

ACIT, CIR.-29,, KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CR. SOCIETY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] I.T.A. No. 268/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Steel Authority Of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Pan: Aadas 9699 B Appellant Respondent Date Of Hearing 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2023 For The Assessee Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mrs. Puja Somani, Ca For The Revenue Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Order Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gain from investments for AY 2011-12 which was reversed by the Ld. CIT(A) and held it as business income which action of the Ld. CIT(A) has not been challenged by the AO, so the finding of Ld CIT(A) that assessee is a trader of of shares and mutual funds crystallises. Therefore, applying the principle

THE INDRA COMPANY LIMITED(AS SAUMYA TRADE & FISCAL SERVICES P. LTD. MERGED INTO THE INDRA CO. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

gains. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held as\nunder:\n“It is manifest that the consideration for the transfer of capital asset is what\nthe transferor receives in lieu of the asset he parts with, namely, money or\nmoney's worth and, therefore, the very asset transferred or parted with\ncannot be the consideration for the transfer

SREELEATHERS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and not all overhead\nexpenses/common expenses are allowable in the said head. He\nfurther pleaded that income from investment (even debt mutual\nfund) is exempt in nature and where there is no exempt income\nearned, there cannot be any disallowance under section 14A. The\nld. Counsel heavily relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Calcutta\nHigh Court

UNIVERSAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains in which explanation (c) has been inserted with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 by the Finance Act, 2022 in which it is mentioned that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this sub-clause, the term "tax" shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

gain of Rs.3902.1O crores. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in its recent judgment in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Nirma Credit & Capital Pvt. Ltd (supra) has held that the expression used in Rule 80(2)(ii) is "interest expenditure" and not "interest paid" and accordingly the expenditure in this context must mean interest paid minus taxable interest earned

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]

391/- in A.Y. 2015-16 .In A.Y. there is meagre surplus of Rs. 52,28,978/- which comes to around 18% of the gross receipts. Again in A.Y. 2017-18 thereis deficit of Rs. 1,32,48,114/- during the year. The Ld. A.R submitted that the case of the assessee squarely covered by the Co- ordinate Bench in assessee

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]

391/- in A.Y. 2015-16 .In A.Y. there is meagre surplus of Rs. 52,28,978/- which comes to around 18% of the gross receipts. Again in A.Y. 2017-18 thereis deficit of Rs. 1,32,48,114/- during the year. The Ld. A.R submitted that the case of the assessee squarely covered by the Co- ordinate Bench in assessee

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]

391/- in A.Y. 2015-16 .In A.Y. there is meagre surplus of Rs. 52,28,978/- which comes to around 18% of the gross receipts. Again in A.Y. 2017-18 thereis deficit of Rs. 1,32,48,114/- during the year. The Ld. A.R submitted that the case of the assessee squarely covered by the Co- ordinate Bench in assessee

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

gain achieved is credit of Rs.3,98,44,628 in the books of the assessee. By placing reliance on the interpretation of section 68 in the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Rekha Krishnaraj vs The Income Tax Officer on 13 March, 2013, I pray of reinstatement of the order of the assessing officer by dismissing