ABHILASH TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), 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

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

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), 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

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), 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

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, 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

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, 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

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, 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. ACIT, CIR.-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

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

M/S COALSALE CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, 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

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

127 taxmann.com 69), answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction u/s 801A has to be allowed with reference to the gross total income' and not the 'business income' alone. Further Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Brother

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

127 taxmann.com 69), answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction u/s 801A has to be allowed with reference to the gross total income' and not the 'business income' alone. Further Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Brother

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

127 taxmann.com 69), answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction u/s 801A has to be allowed with reference to the gross total income' and not the 'business income' alone. Further Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Brother

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

127 taxmann.com 69), answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction u/s 801A has to be allowed with reference to the gross total income' and not the 'business income' alone. Further Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Brother

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

127 taxmann.com 69), answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction u/s 801A has to be allowed with reference to the gross total income' and not the 'business income' alone. Further Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Brother

M/S INTEGRATED EDUCATION RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is allowed while the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M.Balaganesh

2 cases this list. 3.12. In the case of DIT(E) vs. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (supra) and CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection [supra) [relied upon by the Ld. A/R] the Honble Mumbai High Court held that depreciation is allowable to tile charitable trusts even if the cost of such assets has been treated as application

SRI SRI GONESH JEW THAKUR TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

127 ITR 378 wherein the facts of the case were that the assessee had paid wealth tax and income tax during the relevant year but pertaining to the past assessment years. It was assessee’s contention that such tax payment constituted expenditure and, therefore, liable to be deducted in arriving at taxable income of the charitable trust. On appeal