M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs. 33.82L). Thus, even if TDS was deducted on entire other income, there was a short credit income. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (b) One of the reasons for selection of scrutiny was mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A (2) (b) reported in Audit report (Form 3CEB) and ITR. However

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gain and allow partly Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal. 21. Now we shall take up the Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2005-06 being ITA No. 299/KOL/2011. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 10 days on the part of the Revenue in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this

M/S SRINATH JI FURNISHING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

40A(2)(b) are to be excluded from the scope of section 92BA of the Act. The whole object of the omission of clause (i) of section 92BA is to reduce the compliance burden of taxpayers. As we noticed that clause (i) of section 92BA has been ‘omitted” with effect from 01.04.2017. The effect of such omission without any saving

RAIPUR STEEL CASTING INDIA (P)) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

40A(2)(b) are to be excluded from the scope of section 92BA of the Act. The whole object of the omission of clause (i) of section 92BA is to reduce the compliance burden of taxpayers. As we noticed that clause (i) of section 92BA has been ‘omitted” with effect from 01.04.2017. The effect of such omission without any saving

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

gains of business or profession”. 40 (2)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person41 referred to in clause (b) of this sub-section, and the 42 [Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value

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

gains of business or profession”. 40 (2)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person41 referred to in clause (b) of this sub-section, and the 42 [Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains on sale of shares of M/s. Vishal Retail Ltd as pointed out by the ld.AO in his penalty order vide page 2. The plea of the assessee that the claim for exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act was a bonafide mistake made by the assessee has to be accepted. There is no material on record to show

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 40A(i). On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the same reasons as given by the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. Nos. 1671/KOL./2008 & 1024/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 & I.T.A. Nos. 1699/KOL/2008 & 973/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 28 of 34 39. We have heard the arguments

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)

Capital gains" and "Income from other sources"], or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent

SHELTER PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (A)-XII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

capital gains tax in respect of remaining land measuring 13.5 acres for which no consideration had been received and which stood cancelled and incapable of performance at present due to various orders passed by the Supreme Court and the High Court in PILs. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. 7 M/s. Shelter Projects Limited 47. Consequently, the substantial question

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

capital gains and not under the head income from business of profession. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT ITA No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013 Assessment Year

D.C.I.T CIR - 3(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

capital gains and not under the head income from business of profession. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT ITA No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013 Assessment Year

HILL QUEEN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR (iii) Suspicious sale transaction in shares (Penny Stock tab in ITS)” 2 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd. 3.1. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 29/12/2017, determining the total , determining the total income of the assessee company at Rs.20

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue stands dismissed and the Cross Objection of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Dr. M. L. Meena, Hon’Ble]

capitalization of interest expenditure till the date of commissioning of Thermal Project which was legally correct. Therefore, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee on the well settled principle of law on this subject. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same

M/S DIVAKAR SOLAR SYSTEM LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

40A(2) / 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the Grounds 3(a) to 3(f) raised by the assessee are allowed. 12 Divakar Solar System Ltd., AY 2012-13 5. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) is justified in upholding the disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

40A(2)(a) & (b), to prove the excess so paid by the assessee to such company. The payment was made in respect of vacation of the property so occupied by such company. We find substance in the ld Counsel`s argument that the payment was made by the assessee after much negotiation and it was a separate entity and correspondences

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

40A(2)(a) & (b), to prove the excess so paid by the assessee to such company. The payment was made in respect of vacation of the property so occupied by such company. We find substance in the ld Counsel`s argument that the payment was made by the assessee after much negotiation and it was a separate entity and correspondences

MS. LEELA MONDAL,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O, WD -50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains tax, but that cannot be a case of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 1961. If it has claimed any exemption after disclosing the relevant basic facts and under ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1961, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases, penalty should not be imposed