M/S JMS MINING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 263(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard to show cause as to why the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by the DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata on 03/12/2018 for AY 2016-17 should not be held as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

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 ]

56,000/­ as estimated establishment expenses from gross income for calculating the allowable 15% accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) of Income tax Act, 1961 resulting in addition ofRs.203400/­. Alternative to ground no. 2 : For that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A)' erred in sustaining the ld. A/O's action

VIJAY KUMAR BAJORIA FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos.2293&2294/Kol/2016

section 12AA of the Act has further observed in the impugned order that grant of registration to an institution or trust is dependent on the fulfillment of two conditions namely that the objects of the trust should be charitable and the activities of the trust or institution should be genuine. According to the CIT(E) since the assessee

JAN PRIYA TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.(EXEMPTION)-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jan Priya Trust Vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward- (Pan: Aaatj0335M) 1(1), Kolkata.

section 12A of the Act and that the AO without assigning any reason has disallowed Rs.2,18,020/-, which was claimed by the assessee as Administrative & Establishment expenses which was included in the application of income u/s. 11 of the Act. We note that the issue as to whether the administrative and establishment expenses can be included as application

M/S. MOHANLAL MAHENDRA KUMAR PATNI CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), 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. 1463/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2016-17 M/S Mohanlal Mahendra Kumar Patni. -Vs- Cit(E), Kolkata [Pan: Aaatm 8500 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

56[or clause (23AA)] 57[or clause (23C)] of section 10 : 58[Provided that where an institution or fund derives any income, being profits and gains of business, the condition that such income would not be liable to inclusion in its total income under the provisions of section 11 shall not apply in relation to such income

M P BIRLA FOUNDATION EDUCATION SOCIETY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(E) - 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal]

56,35,408/- on such assets. While completing the impugned assessment, Ld. AO has not allowed the said claim of deprecation and made the addition to the total income of the assessee without giving any reason for the same in the assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Ld. CIT(A) while dealing

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

trust. The AO was of the view that, administrative & establishment expenses being attributable to earning income are deductible from gross receipt to determine the net income available for application for charitable purposes for the purpose of calculation of allowable accumulation of 15% under section 11(l)(a) of the Act. Therefore, AO held that following expenses were neither directly

RADHARAMAN BEHARI TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedradharaman Behari V/S. Commissioner Of Income Trust, 13, Roopchand Tax, (Exemptions), 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th Roy Street,Kolkata-007 [Pan No.Aabts 5782 L] Floor, Kolkata-71 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Charitable Trust (for short GRGCT). Radharaman Behari Trust Vs. CIT(Ex) Kol. Page 3 5. In the course of survey operations the Authorized Officer carrying out the survey recorded the statement of Shri Anand Agarwal, Managing trustee of GRGCT u/s 131 of the Act, wherein it was admitted that it is engaged in money laundering activities by way of giving

GOPSAI AVIANDAN SANGHA,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. C.I.T.(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

56 SOT 522 (Chd)]. It is also a settled law now that at the stage of granting registration, objects of the Society and not activities or purported utilization of its income for charitable purposes, has to be considered by the Commissioner [Please refer CIT Vs. BKK Memorial Trust (2013) 213 Taxman 1 (Punj & Har.) & DIT Vs. Meenakshi Amma Endowment Trust

GOPSAI AVIANDAN SANGHA,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. C.I.T.(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

56 SOT 522 (Chd)]. It is also a settled law now that at the stage of granting registration, objects of the Society and not activities or purported utilization of its income for charitable purposes, has to be considered by the Commissioner [Please refer CIT Vs. BKK Memorial Trust (2013) 213 Taxman 1 (Punj & Har.) & DIT Vs. Meenakshi Amma Endowment Trust

JAMSHED ALI MOLLA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-30, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2233/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jamshed Ali Molla -Vs- Dcit, Circle-30, Kolkata [Pan: Aevpm 4145 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

56,57,500 + 45,92,500) towards purchase of two properties on behalf of the trust. Since the assessee had drawn only Rs 23,90,000/- from the said trust way back on 11.9.2002, the assessee claimed the differential payment of Rs 78,60,000/- ( 1,02,50,000 -23,90,000) as compensation paid by him to the trust

LIONS CLUB OF BURDWAN ,BURDWAN vs. A.DIT, CPC/ THE ITO, WARD 2(1). , BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.240/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Lions Club Of Burdwan ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaajl1232F) Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax, …………….. Respondent Cpc/ Ito, Ward-2(1), Burdwan

56,60,913/- applied on revenue account, Rs.28,59,084/- applied on capital account and Rs.12,69,645/- accumulated to be applied for charitable activities in future. In the original return, the assessee wrongly claimed the exemption u/s. 10(23C) of the Act and not u/s. 11. Return processed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 28.02.2019 proposing adjustment

I.T.O.(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CAMELLIA EDUCARE TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

56,99,706/- and capital expenditure of Rs.1,41,57,274/- as claimed by the assessee in its return, which is evident from pages 21 and 24 of the impugned intimation. He also C.O. No. 7/Kol/2023 Camellia Educare Trust, AY: 2020-21. stated that CPC has duly acknowledged the fact that assessee is a registered trust

S D RAI PRAYAS EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT WARD 50(1) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 S D Rai Prayas Educational Trust……………..……….….……….……Appellant Flat No.Ge Building No.11, Brijdham Housing Complex, Canal Street, Vip Road, Shree Bhumi, North 24 Parganas, Kol-700048.. [Pan: Aavts2993M] Vs. Assessment Unit Ward-50(1), Kolkata …………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent

56,664/-under the head as income from other sources and penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 270A of the IT Act were also initiated on this issue. 3. Aggrieved by the said intimation order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed as the appeal of the assessee was dismissed

TARASAFE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-15(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

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

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

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