THE INSTITUTE OF INDIA FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),EXEMPT, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), EXEMPTION , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

SHREE RAM TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Trust Mhow v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 832 (MP). No reason whatsoever has been given by the Revenue authorities for deducting Rs. 2,17,126 in this case for purposes of section 11(1)(a). The decision cited on behalf of the Revenue did not take into account the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. The circular

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 11(4A) of the Act has to be considered in the context of difference between property held in favour of assessee-trust and profit arisen to assessee-trust out of business. This Sec. 11(4A) of the Act is not applicable in the instant case as the property is held in assessee-trust. The GA was always a part

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. CIT, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviasansol Durgapur V/S. Commissioner Of Development Authority Income Tax, 1St Administrative Durgapur, Urmila Building, City Center, Bhawan, City Center Durgapur, West Bengal [Pan No.Aaala 0733G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

charitable. 4. Facts in brief are that assessee-applicant is a Development Authority constituted u/s. 11 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning & Development) Act, 1979 and engaged in the activities of developing the public utilities. The assessee-trust upto including Assessment Year 2003-04 was claiming the exemption u/s. 10(20A) of the Act. However, the Section

SINDHU CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Charitable Trust and therefore an Association of Persons within the meaning of section 2(31)(iv) of the Income Tax Act ('Act' in brief

SURAJ DEVI MOHTA CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. DIT-EXEMPTION, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2023/Kol/2014 Suraj Devi Mohta Charitable Vs. D.I.T.(Exemption), Kolkata Trust 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th 7, Lyons Range, 2Nd Floor, Room Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. No.4C, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaets3384 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri P. J. Bhide, Fca Respondent By :Shri G. Hangshing, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata Dated 06.08.2014. 2.This Appeal Is Time-Barred By 21 Days. The Assessee Moved An Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. Having Heard The Petition Of Condonation Of Delay, We Find That There Was Sufficient Reason For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Time Limit, Before The Itat. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1.That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Director Of Income Tax(Exemption), Kolkata Erred In Rejecting The Application For Renewal Of Exemption U/S 80G(5)(Vi) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Loan Given To Mrs. Shrutimohta, Wife Of One Of The Trustees, Shri

section 11(5) of the Act.The ld Counsel pointed out that merely because the assessee trust has allowed the loan to the wife of one of the Trustees,the assessee trust should not be denied for exemption u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because the loan was fully secured and bearing interest rate of 12% which

D.D.I.T (E) - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE SHREE MOHANANANDA BRAHMACHARI MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1042/Kol/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ddte(E)-I, Kolkata Vs. Shree 5Th Floor, 10B Middleton Row, Mohananandabrahmachari Kolkata-700071 Medical Welfare Trust Ae-467, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts 0083 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri M. K. Biswas,Acit Dr Respondent By :Shri Vigyaneshwarnathdatta, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2003-04, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Jalpaiguri, In Appeal No.763/Cit(A)-Xiv/11-12, Dated 06.03.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 254/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.11.2011. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

31, 1994.” It was apparent from the above that the purposes for which the fund was actually vague and not specified. In so far, it is fixed for anyone or more of the objects of the Trust set out in the Trust deed, whereas in the present case, out of the other objects, the fund was clearly earmarked for public

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

charitable trusts which have been approved under section 80G(6)(vi) and unlike sub-clauses (iiihk) and (iiihi), there is no restriction or prohibition set out in the said sub-clause denying deduction under section 80G for CSR contributions. [Para 13]” 7.2. It is further noticed that CSR expenditure is an obligation of the company specified in section

SREE SREE MOHANANANDA BRAHMACHARI MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. DDIT(E)-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 Sree Sree Mohanananda Vs. Ddit(E)-I, Kolkata Brahmachari Medical Welfare Trust 10B Middleton Row, Kolkata- Ae-467, Salt Lake City, 700071 Kolkata – 700 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts 0083 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri M. K. Biswas,Acit Dr Respondent By :Shri Vigyaneshwarnathdatta, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2002-03, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-Xiv, Kolkata, In Appeal No.762/Cit(A)-Xiv/2011-12, Dated 18.03.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 254/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.11.2011. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1.For That The Order Of Assessment Is Void Ab Initio, Bad In Law & Is Neither Tenable In Law Nor In Facts. 2.For That The Assessment Order Is Opposed To Requirement In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 3.For That The Assessment Is Made In Arbitrary, Violence Of Natural Justice, Without Application Of Mind & Not Tenable In Law. 4.For That The Order Of Authorities Below Is Grossly Unjustified In Disallowing The Claim Of Rs.54,83,854/- U/S 11(2) Of The Act. The Contention Of The Assessing Officer Is Neither Tenable In Law Nor In Facts.

31, 1994.” It was apparent from the above that the purposes for which the fund was actually vague and not specified. In so far,it is fixed for anyone or more of the objects of the Trust set out in the Trust deed, whereas in the present case, out of the other objects, the fund was clearly earmarked for public

DDIT (EXEMPTIONS)-I/KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEVI KAMAL TRUST ESTATE, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; and, where any such income

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Patton International Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O Jain Vinod K & Income-Tax, Kolkata-1. Associates, 41A, A. J. C. Vs Bose Road, Diamond . Prestige Nirman, 6Th Floor, Suite No.613, Kolkata- 700017 (Pan: Aabcp7901M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 197 of the Companies Act, 2013; (iii) In respect of double claim of depreciation on fixed assets of SEZ unit at Falta. 2.1. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 25.10.2017 reporting total income of Rs.74,31,92,720/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. CASS. Statutory notices were issued