SPML INFRA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-1 , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

482/-. The assessment records has been gone through and found that the assessee company had purchased a building (12344 sq.ft.) built in a land of 7380 sq. ft. previously and sold the same for Rs.1216.12 lakh in F. Yr. 2016-17 but wrongly claimed the gain of Rs.27.32 lakh under short term capital gain and the same was wrongly

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

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

M/S H.C. COMMERCIAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN.CIR.-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. H. C. Commercial Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Middleton Row, Kolkata- Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- 700071. 2(1), Kolkata. (Pan: Aabch2665N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1037682272(1) Dated 10.12.2021 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Central Circle-2(1),Kolkata Dated 28.01.2016. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: 1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A)-20, Kolkata On 10.12.2021 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.Lt.(A) Was Wrong In Dittoing The Order Of The A.O. & Confirming The Disallowance U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii), 0.5% Of Average Investment Amounting To Rs.5,00,482/- (Rs.9,00,375/- Minus Rs.4,00,563/-) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That The A.O. Was Not Deducted The Income From Which Is Taxable During The Year & The Amount Of Rs.400,563/- Has Already Added Back To The Return Income, So, Rs.5,00,482/- Cannot Be Part For The Disallowance & Wrongly Calculated U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal.

capital gains tax on above investments, Rule 8D will not apply on them and the AO was directed to recompute disallowance u/s l4A read with Rule 8D after excluding short term investments. As regards units in a mutual fund, they are normally held as investment and not stock-in- trade. Whether the provisions of section l4A can be applied

ITO, WD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT SHANTI DEVI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1313/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-36(2), Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Shanti Devi [Pan: Albpd 0630 M ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) / 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 12.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Recently the CBDT has issued Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, whereby the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before Supreme Court 2 Smt. Shanti

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

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]

482/- and interest of Rs. 36,076/- paid on the car loan as relating to personal purposes. 8. Having considered the facts on record, we observe that during the year the assessee has purchased XUV 500 on 15.12.2016 for Rs. 17,79,756/- and the vehicle was registered in the name of Shri Suman Kumar Goel, one of the partners

M/S. OSIAN STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD- 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 408/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Osian Stock Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), C/O S M Surana Advocate Kolkata Vs Unit No. 1501 15Th Floor Diamond Heritage 16, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaaco3479N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/06/2022 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) On Legal Issue As Well As On Merit As Raised In The Concise Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Which Are Reproduced Below: “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Properly Appreciating The Facts & Disposing The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Taken Into Consideration All Legal Steps Before Initiating Action U/S 147 When The Reopening Of Assessment Was Not In Accordance With Law.

482/-. Finally assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act was framed determining total income of assessee at Rs.55,69,030/- 5. The Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that AO, after due application of mind to the information available as per FIU-IND regarding suspicious transactions, has come to the conclusion that income

M/S BRIDHI DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

482/- u/s. 14A of the Act and thus it is noted that second AO did not draw any adverse inference against the share capital and premium collected by the assessee after carrying out the aforesaid exercise as directed by the First Ld. Pr. CIT to him. This exercise carried out by the second AO while framing the second assessment/re-assessment

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

capital gains of Rs.39,919/- was claimed to be exempt by the assessee and a disallowance of Rs.42,110/- was offered u/s 14A of the Act on account of direct expenses incurred in relation to the said exempt income on account of D-MAT charges. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that direct expenses

M/S. M.K.J. DEVELOPERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1927/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Mkj Developers Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7076 L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains of Rs 4,14,18,793/- , income from other sources of Rs 6,85,197/- ; profit from real estate of Rs 3,63,56,986/- and loss on trading of shares of Rs 1,70,744/-. Hence the principal business carried on by the assessee during the Asst Year 2006-07 was investment and real estate transaction. Hence

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". In this regard, the asseessee relied on the following

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". In this regard, the asseessee relied on the following

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORBIS POWER VENTURE PVT. LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

482 (Delhi), has held as follows:- “….the assessee was in the business of owning, running and managing hotels. For the effective control of new hotels acquired by the assessee under its management it had invested in a wholly owned subsidiary company. The expenditure incurred was expenditure incurred for business purposes and was thus allowable under section 36 of the Income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

section 3 of the Income­tax Act, 1961 and Regulation 21 of the SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations, 1996­ Business expenditure ­ Allowability of (Commencement of business] – Assessee was an asset management company incorporated on 8­8­2011­ It was required to obtain SEBI approval for undertaking such business­SEBI approved assessee to act as an asset management company on 17­10­2012­ Thereafter on 19­12­2012, assessee­company made

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". In this regard, the asseessee relied on the following

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". In this regard, the asseessee relied on the following

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid 4 The Royal Bank of Sctoland N.V. India Branches, AY 2014-15 out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

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