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

3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal also against the assessee. These grounds are accordingly dismissed. 18. The issue involved in Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2005-06 relates to the disallowance of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A, which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent

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]

40a(ia) of the Act have wrongly been invoked by the AO. Similarly the Ld. CIT(A) simply affirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source as provided in the Act. We find support from the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of ACIT vs Uco Bank

EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

40A(9) clearly shows that the case of the assessee was not selected for a limited scrutiny and it was a case of regular assessment. We, therefore, find no merit in the case of the assessee on this issue and rejecting the same, we dismiss Grounds No. 2 & 3. 7. Grounds No. 4 & 5 raised by the assessee 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

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

ALOK KUMAR SARKAR,HOOGHLY vs. CIT, KOLKATA-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar..................………...................................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Akkps 9552 R] Vs. Commissioner Of Income-(8), Kolkata...............................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

40A(3) of the Act after a blatant admission that there was no breach on that behalf is based on extraneous parameters not amenable to reason is completely unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law. 3. FOR THAT on a true and proper interpretation of the scope and ambit of the provisions of s, 263(1) of the Income

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

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

40A(3) to be no more applicable after altogether rejection of books and confirms section 68 addition of cash deposits of ₹8.25 lac as follows:- (i) Conclusion In this case, in the original Profit & Loss account two receipts have been shown, relating to the receipt of Rs. 1,33,80,987/- as contractual receipt against which there is no dispute

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

40A(3) to be no more applicable after altogether rejection of books and confirms section 68 addition of cash deposits of ₹8.25 lac as follows:- (i) Conclusion In this case, in the original Profit & Loss account two receipts have been shown, relating to the receipt of Rs. 1,33,80,987/- as contractual receipt against which there is no dispute

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)

3. Clause (d) of Section 43 (5) became effective with effect from 1st April, 2006. Therefore, prior to 1st April, 2006 any transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity including stocks and shares was periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrip was a speculative

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

3 C-AM Sh.Ram Ch.Agarwal proceedings that the ld.AO had merely called for submission of details of purchase and sale of shares and mutual funds on 29-10-2010. The assessee while collecting the details for the same, understood a mistake committed by him in the original return of income by not offering the long term capital gains on sale

M/S PUNJAB GLASS DEPOT,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 379/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Punjab Glass Depot -Vs- Ito, Ward-35(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaffp 9629 K ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee

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

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