BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub- section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub- section

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub- section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub- section

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub- section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub- section

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub- section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub- section

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub- section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub- section

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub- section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub- section

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub- section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub- section

M/S. CALCUTTA CRICKET & FOOTBALL CLUB,KOLKATA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(1). KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

226 ITR 97 (SC). (v) Assessment for the assessment year 2005-06 was made under sections 143(3)/11 of the Act and exemption under section 11 was allowed. The returns for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 claiming exemption under section ere accepted under section 143( 1). (vi) In the assessment years

M/S CALCUTTA CRICKET & FOOTBALL CLUB,KOLKATA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 466/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club -Vs.- I.T.O., Exemption-I, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccc 6337 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate & Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

226 ITR 97 (SC). (v) Assessment for the assessment year 2005-06 was made under sections 143(3)/11 of the Act and exemption under section 11 was allowed. The returns for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 claiming exemption under section ere accepted under section 143( 1). (vi) In the assessment years

ITO, (E) -II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DEBI KAMAL ESTATE TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue on ground No

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.862/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2004-05) Ito(E)-Ii Vs. Debi Kamal Estate Trust, Kolkata 5Th , 10B, 7, Queens Park, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700020 Kolkata-700071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd 7600 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated, 09.07.2009 2 Co.No.68/Kol/2013 Debi Kamal Estate Trust 2. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2004-05 on dated 31.03.2005 declaring total income at Nil. The Return of income

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

226 as per calculation made under section 36(1 )(viia). The entitlement for deduction cannot be restricted to the extent of only provision created in the books subject to the upper limits laid down in Sec.36(1)((viia)(a) given as above. The AO however held that the deduction u/s.36(1)(viia)(a) of the Act cannot be greater than

SOCIETY FOR MODEL GRAM VIKASH KENDRA,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEM.), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3,55,76,399/- where income from charitable receipts is only Rs. 73,88,323/-. (ii) The income from Micro finance activity has been computed at Rs. 44,88,226/- after reducing the expenditure for Micro finance activity of Rs. 2,37,01,850/- and allowed exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The activity

ITO(E), WD-1(3),KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. SRI AUROBINDO INSTITUTE OF CULTURE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

charitable trusts is required to be computed on commercial principles. The concept of application of the income for the year in which the income has arisen is not found in Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. No limitation to the above effect is found in the language of the section. It merely requires application of the income that

M/S PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL AND RESERCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1107/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2009-10 M/S Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcp 7225 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.12.2011 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-TDS, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

3. The common issue in all the three appeals, which requires our adjudication, is whether a demand under section 201(1A) r.w.s. 194 C can be enforced even in a situation in which the recipient of income embedded in the payments has paid due taxes thereon, and, if n ot, who has the onus to demonstrate that status about payment

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. JCIT, R-59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

3. The common issue in all the three appeals, which requires our adjudication, is whether a demand under section 201(1A) r.w.s. 194 C can be enforced even in a situation in which the recipient of income embedded in the payments has paid due taxes thereon, and, if n ot, who has the onus to demonstrate that status about payment