M/S. M. K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appealof the Revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1903/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 8Th Floor, 2/2. Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata – 700 020. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccm 0884 H (Assessee) .. (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1974/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 8Th Floor, 2/2. Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata – 700 069. Kolkata – 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccm 0884 H (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By :Shrisaurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Sr. Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2018

Charitable Trust ( institution) has become taxable for any technical reason and also the Ld. AO did not mention that the certificate issued under section 80G(5)(v) has been cancelled by the Income Tax Department. Under these circumstances the deduction under section 80G of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee company.We also note that subsequent to the donation

JAGANNATH GUPTA FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini

section 11, which, while exempting the income given in its various sub-clauses from being included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income, for example, in sub-clause (1) says ‘income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income

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]

36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. Now, having extensively with the newly amended section 2(15) of the Act and its absolute inapplicability to the case of assessee supported by various judicial decisions

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]

36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. Now, having extensively with the newly amended section 2(15) of the Act and its absolute inapplicability to the case of assessee supported by various judicial decisions

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]

36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. Now, having extensively with the newly amended section 2(15) of the Act and its absolute inapplicability to the case of assessee supported by various judicial decisions

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]

36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. Now, having extensively with the newly amended section 2(15) of the Act and its absolute inapplicability to the case of assessee supported by various judicial decisions

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]

36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. Now, having extensively with the newly amended section 2(15) of the Act and its absolute inapplicability to the case of assessee supported by various judicial decisions

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]

36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. Now, having extensively with the newly amended section 2(15) of the Act and its absolute inapplicability to the case of assessee supported by various judicial decisions

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]

36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. Now, having extensively with the newly amended section 2(15) of the Act and its absolute inapplicability to the case of assessee supported by various judicial decisions

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]

36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. Now, having extensively with the newly amended section 2(15) of the Act and its absolute inapplicability to the case of assessee supported by various judicial decisions

M/S MCC PTA INDIA CORPN. PVT. LTD.,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-59, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

36:- 1. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that wharfage charges paid by the appellant to Kolkata Port Trust was in the nature of rental payments made for usage of land and tax was required to be deducted at source on such payment. The said finding is without any basis and illegal. 2. For that

OM SHANTI CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. AO WARD NO 1(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year : 2019-20

Charitable Trust, Kolkata AY: 2019-20 2. The Learned CIT Appeal has erred in disallowing the claim of exemption of Rs. 797367/- on ground that the trust has not furnished the details of Registration u/s 12A/12AA. Hence the exemption is not allowed. 3. The Learned CIT Appeal did not provide the opportunity to provide the Registration detail of the trust

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

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

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

trust which were for charitable purposes. (iii) that Hon’ble ITAT while dealing with the appeal for A.Y 2009 – 10 involving the amended section 2(15) and restrictive proviso thereto duly considered vide para 33 of the order (supra) memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2008 as also CBDT circular no. 11 of 2008 dated 19.12. 2008, and examined various facts

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

36. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 37. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the revenue read as follows :- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.108,45,17,830/- being amortization of premium paid for purchase of securities without

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]

trust for a public charitable purpose and the income therefrom is utilised for the promotion of sports and games. The admission fee received from the corporate members is actually a capital or corpus receipt [Please see the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT -vs- Diners Business Services Pvt. Ltd., [2003) 263 ITR 1 (Bom)], If such

SREEMA MAHILA SAMITY,NADIA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-NADIA, NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

trust and taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee and the amendment effected to section 2(15) of the Act the AO added the said income to the total income of the assessee. We note that the assessee is a charitable institution and exemptions claimed by it are available on certain conditions. The charitable purposes are defined

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

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 is accumulated or set apart for application to such purposes in India, to the extent to which the income so accumulated or set apart is not in excess of fifteen per cent

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

section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on Oath on 23.02.2015, which was in continuation of his statement recorded dated 13.02.2015 i.e. subsequent to the survey conducted upon SHG&PH. Copy of this statement along with the statements of other brokers have been placed by the Revenue and copy of the statement of Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal is available