SOMA RANI GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

11 of 19 19. Further, CBDT Circular No. 05/2010 F.No.l42/13/2010- SO (TPL), dated 3Td June, 2010, in the context of the Explanatory Notes on Finance Act (No.2) 2009, clearly delineates reason for removal of dividing line between a Contractor and a Sub-Contractor by the Finance Act, (No.2) , 2009 in the following terms: "Under the existing provisions of section

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

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallow the said sum of Rs.551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the said Assessment Order, according to you, was allegedly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning

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

section 11(1) of the Act, therefore, AO disallowed the depreciation claim of Rs.2,84,67,351/-. 5. On appeal, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 6

LAKSHMI TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (E) - II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

disallowed a sum of Rs.14,050/-. 3. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer completely misconceived the facts of the case. 4. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a more than 25 year old public charitable trust and has been all along allowed exemption under section 11. The assessment for the assessment year 2006-07 also

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LAST PEAK DATA PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed as the provisions of section 115JB, amended w.e.f. 1.4.2008, do not permit the deduction u/s. 10A. In this respect the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 115JB(6) exempted the assessee from taxability u/s. 115JB. The assessee further took the plea that the provisions of section 115JB(6) exempted all units situated in Special Economic Zones from

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 11, the amount kept under corpus fund has been exempted in the year of receipt. Since investment in mutual fund is a valid mode of investment u/s.11(5), there is always the possibility to incur gain or loss. In case of the investments, the corpus fund is reduced. On the other hand, the profit out of the 5 Oriental

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit-A. The Cit-A By Placing His Reliance On An Order Of Kolkata Bench (Itat, Kolkata) In The Case Of Rei Agro Ltd Reported In (2013) 144 Itd 141 (Kolkata-Trib) Directed The Ao To Verify The Details Of Investment Filed Before Him & To Compute The Expenditure Accordingly In Terms Of Investment, Which Yielded Exempt Income.

disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,03,67,422/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of Rs.30,07,706/- (Rs.50,19,372 – Rs.20,11,666 and totaling to Rs. 1,33,75,128/- u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D and added the same to the total income of assessee. The assesse 1 I.T.A No. 2271/Kol/2017 M/s. Ashiana Housing Limited

DDIT (E) - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCTS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 Ddit(E)-I, 5Th Floor, V/S. Sasha Association For 10B, Middleton Row, Craft Products Kolkata-700 071 Ic, Chahatu Babu Lane, Kolkata-700 014 [Pan No.Aabts 5580 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed the exemption benefit available to the assessee in Section 11 of the Act for the ITA No.914/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 DIT(E)- Kol. v. Sasha Asso. For Craft Products. Page 5 reason that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of the Private Limited Company is in contravention of the provisions of that Section 11

PANCHAJANYA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1(4), KOKLATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1841/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

disallowance of claim of capital receipts on account of Admission Fee of Rs. 4,49,180/-, Re-admission Fees Rs.1,00,00,000/-, Term Charges Rs.21,70,700/- have been wrongly made without narrating any cogent reasons”. 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed from the balance sheet

ITO(E), WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PANCHAJANYA TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1841/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

disallowance of claim of capital receipts on account of Admission Fee of Rs. 4,49,180/-, Re-admission Fees Rs.1,00,00,000/-, Term Charges Rs.21,70,700/- have been wrongly made without narrating any cogent reasons”. 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed from the balance sheet

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

11,27,261/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the following submissions, inter alia, were made by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of its stand

M/S. SAHARA UTSARGA WELFARE SOCIETY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(E), CIRCLE - 1 , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble) [Virtual Court Hearing] Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Sahara Utsrga Welfare Society…………………….................................………………...…......Appellant Michael Nagar Kalibari Sarani Kolkata – 700 133 [Pan : Aadts 6744 E] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (E), Circle-1, Kolkata………….........….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 21St, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 8Th, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

disallowance of claim u/s 11(2) of the Act, of Rs.90,00,000/ 11(2) of the Act, of Rs.90,00,000/- by the Assessing Officer. 5.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the accumulation u/s 11(2) of the The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the accumulation u/s 11(2) of the The ld. Counsel

VIDYA BHARATI SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION & SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

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

disallowed the benefit u/s. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 3. Brief facts of the case, as discussed by the AO, is that the assessee society is for education and scientific advancement and filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 declaring nil income which was processed

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]

6) dated 19. 06. 1968. Moreover, normal accounting principal provides for taking depreciation to arrive at income. The income so arrived at after deduction of depreciation is to be computed for application towards charitable purpose. Capital expenditure incurred s an application of income so determined. It was also pointed out that by amendment in section 11 of the Act with

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), V/S. M/S Integrated Coal P-7, Chowringhee Mining Ltd., 6, Church Square, Kolkata-69 Lane, 1Ste Floor, Kolakta-700001 [Pan No.Aaaci 5584 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Diparun Mukherjee, Aca & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Alolk Goenka, Aca 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

6 4. Next comes the Revenue’s second substantive grievance seeking to reverse section 14A r.w.s.8D disallowance of ₹55,96,082 in relation to assessee’s exempt income from dividends amounting to ₹30.40 lac. The Assessing Officer’s assessee had admittedly disallowed a sum of ₹44,450/- on its own. The assessment order dated 08.03.2013 disallowed ½ % of average value

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

11 or section 12 apply". Under the provisions of section 14A no 'deduction is to be allowed in respect of' expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of total income under this Act. Since the issue of expenditure related to dividend income, falling under section 10 it is clear that the two provisions

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

11 of 22 principle of consistency, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and dismiss Ground No. 3. 17. Ground No. 4 of the revenue’s appeal and ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 involve a common issue relating to the disallowance under