JHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation of Rs.19,69,869/- on the ground that amendment made in Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in section 11(5) of the Act is retrospective in operation/clarificatory and, therefore, not allowable. 3. Facts of the case as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) is as under: “The assessee is a charitable trust having

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]

80G of the Act on the payments made to ICC. On the said basis, the AO observed that the assessee has rendered services in relation to trade, commerce or business for a consideration and therefore the part of its activities such as holding of meetings, conferences and seminars have been treated as business activities. The Ld. A.R submitted that

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]

80G of the Act on the payments made to ICC. On the said basis, the AO observed that the assessee has rendered services in relation to trade, commerce or business for a consideration and therefore the part of its activities such as holding of meetings, conferences and seminars have been treated as business activities. The Ld. A.R submitted that

M/S GOLD TOUCH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

5 to ITA No.327/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 M/s Gold Touch Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Wd-7(3) Kol. Page 6 section 80G by the Finance Act, 1976. After the insertion of the aforesaid Explanation, there cannot be any doubt that, for purposes of claiming deduction, only cash amounts which may have been donated would be taken into account

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R. PIYARELALL IMPORT & EXPORT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

5 ITA No.952/Kol/10 & C.O.No.71/Kol/2010 M/s. R. Piyarelall Import & Export Ltd. stocks and shares through price fluctuation. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after examining all the relevant facts and figures and after giving the assessee

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

5 TCG Lifesciences Ltd. TPO 30.40% 6 Fermish Clinical Technologies Pvt. Ltd. TPO 3.82% M/s Philips India Limited; A.Y. 2020-21 7 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. TPO -25.77% 35th percentile 17.21% Median 20.40% 65th percentile 21.05% 019. After considering the said comparable, the median was computed at 30.40%. The assessee has challenged the comparables specifically being one Aurigene Discovery

CHATTERJEE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

Depreciation of Rs.10,97,669 which was admissible as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Income Tax Rules, 1962. 6) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata erred in upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the deduction of Rs.4,90,000 claimed by the Appellant Assessee company under section 80G

ITO, WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. SHRI ARUNASIA SARKAR, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the cross appeals as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. I.T.A. No. 176/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer..………………………………………………………….............................Appellant Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………...........................Respondent 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 176/Kol/2015) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 14, 2018

Depreciation 0 1,08,650 Net Profit 4,15,475 9,15,475 4 I.T.A. Nos. 258 & 176/Kol/2015 & C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar 3. The A.O. also noted that there was a remarkable difference in the balance sheet figures as well as the deductions claimed by the assessee under Chapter VIA as under: Item Return filed

ARUNASHIS SARKAR,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-1(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the cross appeals as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. I.T.A. No. 176/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer..………………………………………………………….............................Appellant Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………...........................Respondent 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 176/Kol/2015) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 14, 2018

Depreciation 0 1,08,650 Net Profit 4,15,475 9,15,475 4 I.T.A. Nos. 258 & 176/Kol/2015 & C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar 3. The A.O. also noted that there was a remarkable difference in the balance sheet figures as well as the deductions claimed by the assessee under Chapter VIA as under: Item Return filed

COMMUNITY FOR SOCIAL WORK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Girish Agrawal

depreciation was claimed as per the provision of Section 32 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T.(Appeals) should have considered that the assessee-society is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act & obtained approval u/s. 80G of the Act & as such the society was entitled

BATANAGAR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

5)(vi). d) They have violated the objects of the Trust as converting cheque received through corpus donation in cash beyond the objects. The Society was found to be involved in Hawala activities. e) Corpus donation received is not voluntary, merely an accommodation entry and fictitious. f) Activities of the Trust are not genuine as well as not being carried

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

section for depreciation is only for business entity and the reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) for taxing the receipt and the denial of depreciation exposes the non-application of mind of the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issues before him. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has got the registration

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section for depreciation is only for business entity and the reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) for taxing the receipt and the denial of depreciation exposes the non-application of mind of the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issues before him. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has got the registration

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section for depreciation is only for business entity and the reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) for taxing the receipt and the denial of depreciation exposes the non-application of mind of the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issues before him. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has got the registration

BRAJESWARI RADHARAMAN INTERGENERATIONS HUMANITARIAN TRUST.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

80G, certificate of order u/s 12AA, form no. 10AC, ledger/bill of expenses etc. On examination of the same, the ld. AO disallowed honorarium expenses of Rs. 31,27,452/- and student scholarship expenses of Rs. 52,64,250/- respectively. The ld. AO further on perusal of the financial statement, he noticed that during the assessment year in question assessee

BINAYAK IMAGINE & DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation @ 40%. 7. Issue raised in ground nos. 4 & 5 is against the disallowance of employees contribution to PF &ESI amounting to Rs. 69,448/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 8. At the outset, we note that the grounds of appeal relate to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delayed deposit

M/S PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on total payment towards lease transactions including interest. 14.1. The ld AR argued that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT reported in (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC) wherein it was held that :- ‘the lessor i.e the assessee is the owner of the vehicles

DCIT, CC-XIX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ATHA MINES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2012-13

80G Rs.15,000/- Rs. 4,95,775/- (-) Rs.14,90,79.,794/- Less :Depreciation as per IT Rules Rs.4,19,309/- Dividend exempt u/s 10(34) Rs.1,54,723/- Rs. 5,74,032/- (-) Rs.14,96,53,826/- Disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) Rs.5,56,746/- (-) Rs.14,90,97,080/- Book profit Rs.,15,04,24,431/- Additional income offered for Taxation