DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE DIAMOND COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Charitable Trust [1994] 206 ITR 152/73 Taxman 380(Cal). Redemption of ITA No.326/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT Cir-12 Kol. vs. M/s The Diamond Co. Ltd. Page 4 preference shares by a company; squarely comes within the phrase ‘sale, exchange, or relinquishment of the asset’ and, consequently, it is treated as transfer – Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT [1977] 90 Taxman

MISRILALL MINES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

long or short term capital loss depending upon the period of holding. It was explained to the assessment stage that the appellant had parked its surplus fund in PMS with a view to maximize the profit on such investment; and, the same was shown as investment in the balance sheet. The AO did not accept the explanation. The AO noted

PRESSMAN REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gain’ or ‘business income’ which was adjudicated upon by placing reliance on the order of the Co-ordinate bench for preceding year i.e. AY 2009-10 which has been elaborately discussed above. 10.3. There is an appellate order by ld. CIT(A)-4, Kolkata for AY 2012-13, dtd. 18.07.2019 placed at page 45 of the paper book wherein

M/S SUDERA SERVICES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-8(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

long term capital gain. The first ground of appeal is regarding perversity of the judgment of the learned Tribunal. Mr. Dutta did not cite one example to show that the judgment of the learned Tribunal is not based on evidence.” 20. Before us, the learned Departmental representative could not controvert the arguments of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as that of the assessee, both are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

long term capital gain of Rs.5,62,20,229/- in AY 2007-08. Rule 8D of the Rules is not applicable in this assessment year in the assessee’s case as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Supra) being prospective. We are of the view that

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as that of the assessee, both are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

long term capital gain of Rs.5,62,20,229/- in AY 2007-08. Rule 8D of the Rules is not applicable in this assessment year in the assessee’s case as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Supra) being prospective. We are of the view that

DCIT(EXAMPTION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAA SARASWATI GYAN MANDIR EDUCATION SOCIETY , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2002/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit(Exemption), Circle- Vs. Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir 1(1), Kolkata

capital gains qualify for exemption u/s 11 (1A) of the Act. 11. Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 7 Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir Education Society Assessment Year:2012-13 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing administrative and establishment expenses

PRADYUMNA DALMIA BENEFICIARY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Charitable Trust (2001) (247 ITR 1) … iv. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in L.R. Patel Family Trust vs. ITO (2003) (262 ITR 520) … v. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly Paid Employee Welfare Trust (2004) (271 ITR 159) … vi. The Hon'ble Tribunal in Sriram Trust, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer

VIDYA BHARATI SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION & SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

long term benefit. The nature of receipt is altogether different from any other fees or collection received from students. In respect of other fees and collections from students the school authority has unrestricted powers to make use of such receipts. However, in the case of use of development fund, the school authority did not have any such unrestricted power

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

long-term or short-term borrowings, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business. Since inclusive definition of international transaction includes the activities relating to capital financing and borrowings, in our view now corporate guarantee transaction also falls under the category

AVIS TIE UP PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

charitable to donation has already been suo motu disallowed in the computation of income, the interest claimed on expenditure has no nexus with this exempted income and therefore it is allowable expense u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Finally, assessee submitted that balance expenses of ₹3,63,114/- can be at the most subject to the provision

AVIS TIE UP PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

charitable to donation has already been suo motu disallowed in the computation of income, the interest claimed on expenditure has no nexus with this exempted income and therefore it is allowable expense u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Finally, assessee submitted that balance expenses of ₹3,63,114/- can be at the most subject to the provision

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

long-term capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

termed as a borrowed opinion. The DDIT has transmitted the details exhibiting the fact that donee was engaged in providing accommodation entries to alleged such donors. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to recite six case laws referred by the ld. Counsel for the assessee on this point because it is a question of fact and not any proposition

RAJAT KUMAR MAJUMDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-31(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

charitable entity. This judgment has been pronounced on 02.08.2021. After this judgment, a judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mackaw Corporation has been passed, which has been relied upon by the ld. Counsel, but in this decision, Hon’ble High Court has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, because

RAJAT KUMAR MAJUMDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-31(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

charitable entity. This judgment has been pronounced on 02.08.2021. After this judgment, a judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mackaw Corporation has been passed, which has been relied upon by the ld. Counsel, but in this decision, Hon’ble High Court has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, because

QUADEYE TRADING ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

charitable entity. This judgment has been pronounced on 02.08.2021. After this judgment, a judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mackaw Corporation has been passed, which has been relied upon by the ld. Counsel, but in this decision, Hon’ble High Court has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, because

ORIENT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

charitable entity. This judgment has been pronounced on 02.08.2021. After this judgment, a judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mackaw Corporation has been passed, which has been relied upon by the ld. Counsel, but in this decision, Hon’ble High Court has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, because

PS MAGNUM,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

charitable entity. This judgment has been pronounced on 02.08.2021. After this judgment, a judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mackaw Corporation has been passed, which has been relied upon by the ld. Counsel, but in this decision, Hon’ble High Court has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, because

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

charitable entity. This judgment has been pronounced on 02.08.2021. After this judgment, a judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mackaw Corporation has been passed, which has been relied upon by the ld. Counsel, but in this decision, Hon’ble High Court has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, because