KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 73 is not attracted in its case. “ 5. Based on the above analysis of the transactions giving raise to long term capital gain and short term capital gain, the AO was of the view that short term capital gain of Rs. 4 M/s.K.B.Capital Markets Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 2,64,04,050/- and Long Term Capital Gain

DCIT CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 73 is not attracted in its case. “ 5. Based on the above analysis of the transactions giving raise to long term capital gain and short term capital gain, the AO was of the view that short term capital gain of Rs. 4 M/s.K.B.Capital Markets Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 2,64,04,050/- and Long Term Capital Gain

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

iii) the actual cost of any asset falling within the block of assets acquired during the previous year, Such excess shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital asset; (2) where any block of assets cease to exist as such, for the reason that all the assets ins that block are transferred

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 263:- “6. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee. These observations were raised in the show cause notice, which is discussed hereunder:- (i) Long term capital gain(without STT):- The assessee claimed long term capital loss (without STT) of Rs.109,80,30,873/-on account of loss suffered from government securities(Rs.111

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

6,43,723/- for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The relevant assessment years under appeal are 2006-07 and 2007-08 at which point of time , the provisions of Rule 8D were not in force and the same were made applicable only from

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

6,43,723/- for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The relevant assessment years under appeal are 2006-07 and 2007-08 at which point of time , the provisions of Rule 8D were not in force and the same were made applicable only from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

gains of business or profession. 7.2 Section 40(a)(i) of the Act deals with interest and other sums payable outside India. The provisions of this sub-clause made applicable to interest have been extended to payment of royalty, technical fees and any other sum chargeable under this Act. The section provides that the sums covered by the sub-clause

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

gains of business or profession. 7.2 Section 40(a)(i) of the Act deals with interest and other sums payable outside India. The provisions of this sub-clause made applicable to interest have been extended to payment of royalty, technical fees and any other sum chargeable under this Act. The section provides that the sums covered by the sub-clause

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

iii) of the Rules as 3 A.Yrs.2011-12 has been held by the decision of this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141. But we find that if the disallowance made under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules is deleted, then the disallowance made by the ld AO would remain

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

iii) of the Rules as 3 A.Yrs.2011-12 has been held by the decision of this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141. But we find that if the disallowance made under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules is deleted, then the disallowance made by the ld AO would remain

INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

1) of section 24 provides for setting off of the loss in a particular year under one of the heads mentioned in section 6 against the profits under a different head in the same year, sub-section (2) provides for the carrying forward of the loss of one year and setting off of the same against the profits or gains

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

capital asset situate in India. ** ** ** Explanation 4.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression "through" shall mean and include and shall be deemed to have always meant and included ''by means of", "in consequence of" or "by reason of". 7.1 Section 40 of the Act spells out what amounts are not deductible from the income

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

6 Shuvro Chattaraj, AY: 2015-16 development agreement at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. He also disallowed the claim of Rs. 12,24,360/- u/s 54F of the Act for construction cost of new residential property for want of supporting documents and considered the taxability of JDA on the basis of the latter registered agreement dated 26.09.2014 and allowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-23(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDIP ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

6 “(b) in the case of a capital asset which becomes the property of the assessee in the circumstances mentioned in [sub- section (1)] of section 49, there shall be included the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner referred to in the said section. ” Section 49 referred to in the aforesaid clause (b) of Explanation

SWETA SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

iii) CIT vs. Smt. Neena Krishna Menon [2021] 123 taxmann.com 205 (Karnataka) dated of order 19.11.2020 (Karnataka High Court) iv) Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati vs. DCIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 662 (Ahmedabad- Trib.) dated of order 05.07.2024 (Ahmedabad ITAT) v) Challa Satish Reddy (HUF) vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1) in ITA No. 46/Hyd/2020 date of order 20.06.2022 (Hyderabad ITAT) 5. Contrary

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SURAJ KHANDEL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business income, Rs.25,09,735/- as short-term capital gains and Rs.18,26,601/- as long-term capital gains, which was subjected to verification by the ld. Assessing Officer. 11. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A, ld. CIT(A) held that

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT YAMINI KHANDELWAL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business income, Rs.25,09,735/- as short-term capital gains and Rs.18,26,601/- as long-term capital gains, which was subjected to verification by the ld. Assessing Officer. 11. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A, ld. CIT(A) held that

YAMINI KHANDEL WAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business income, Rs.25,09,735/- as short-term capital gains and Rs.18,26,601/- as long-term capital gains, which was subjected to verification by the ld. Assessing Officer. 11. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A, ld. CIT(A) held that