APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

56 ITR 198 (SC). Section 2(22) starts with the words" Dividend includes " Thus, the definition of dividend is inclusive and not exhaustive. 9.5 Section 2(22)(e) reads as any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

56 ITR 198 (SC). Section 2(22) starts with the words" Dividend includes " Thus, the definition of dividend is inclusive and not exhaustive. 9.5 Section 2(22)(e) reads as any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

56 ITR 198 (SC). Section 2(22) starts with the words" Dividend includes " Thus, the definition of dividend is inclusive and not exhaustive. 9.5 Section 2(22)(e) reads as any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

56(2)(vii) of the Act. He subm the taxability of the compensation u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He submits that the averments of its that the averments of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views

MILK MANTRA DAIRY (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIR.-12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Milk Mantra Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Pan: Aagcm1112L Income-Tax Vs. 7Th Floor, Z Tower, Patia Circle-12(1) Nandan Kanan Road, Kolkata. Bhubaneswar-751024. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Rajib Sharma & Shri Jai Somani, Ars Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Kolkata In Appeal No. 491/Cit(A)-4/16-17 Dated 03.02.2020 Against The Assessment Order Of Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Dated 13.01.2017. 2. There Is A Delay Of 73 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record. From The Condonation Petition, We Note That The Present Appeal Ought To Have Been Filed On Or Before 17.04.2020 Which Falls During The Lockdown Period On Account Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. It Is Requested By The Assessee That Since It Is Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause, The Delay Of 73 Days In Filing The Appeal May Be Condoned & Appeal Be Admitted For Meritorious Disposal. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That Vide Order Dated 10.01.2022, Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed That The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Computing The 2 Milk Mantra Dairy (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 Limitation Period During The Covid-19 Pandemic. Further, A Period Of 90 Days Is Allowed After 28.02.2022 Vide Same Order. Considering The Facts & The Explanation Of The Assessee, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Admit It For Adjudication.

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act; 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 56(2)(x) on acquisition of leasehold land & building; 2 Britannia Industries Limited (ii) Disallowance of expenditure on scientific

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56(2)\nof the Act is concerned we find that during the year under consideration the\nassessee received gift of the above amount from M/s Anand Akash Sureka, being\nthe father and a member of Hindu undivided family. The AO disallowed by\nupholding that the father did not come under the definition of relatives. The\nsubmission of the assessee

RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. A sum of Rs.1,24,54,080/- was brought to tax. Disallowance

ALOKE RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(INTT.TAXATION), CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed and long term capital gain was recalculated as under: Sl. Particulars Amount No. 1 Full value of consideration Less Allowed Rs. 3,55,72,600 Brokerage (-) 2,37,500 Rs. 3,53,35,100 2 Less Indexed cost of Acquisition (-) Rs. 1,43,36,000 3 Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 2,09,99,000 4 Less Deduction

BIBHISANPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA/ WBG-W-176(3), HALDIA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80P of the I.T. Act. Thus, the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.32,79,394/- is disallowed and added to the Total Income treating the same as "other income" u/s. 56

RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallow the loss in question and hence the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not called for the details and verified the same conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not called for the details and verified the same conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not called for the details and verified the same after application of mind, is a factually

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

56(2) of the Act is concerned we find that during the year under consideration the assessee received gift of the above amount from M/s Anand Akash Sureka, being the father and a member of Hindu undivided family. The AO disallowed by upholding that the father did not come under the definition of relatives. The submission of the assessee

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]

disallowed and added Back to the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment completed appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in accordance with the provisions of Section

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUPITER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

disallowances or additions:- 1. Additions under section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,78,76,015. 2. Additions under section 56

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed and added back with the net profit of the assessee under section 56 (2) (viib) of the I.T. Act. [Addition

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 23. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the approval of gratuity fund is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax and once approved then it will be effective from the date of application. Therefore, the same is eligible for deduction

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 23. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the approval of gratuity fund is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax and once approved then it will be effective from the date of application. Therefore, the same is eligible for deduction