THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

house and pavilions and income earned from such properties owned by a club was liable to be taxed. (iv) Group D cases were with regard to the question as to whether, an association consisting offilm distributors and exhibitors incorporated as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 was liable to be taxed in respect of (a) admission

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

house and pavilions and income earned from such properties owned by a club was liable to be taxed. (iv) Group D cases were with regard to the question as to whether, an association consisting offilm distributors and exhibitors incorporated as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 was liable to be taxed in respect of (a) admission

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SATURDAY CLUB LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

house and pavilions and income earned from such properties owned by a club was liable to be taxed. (iv) Group D cases were with regard to the question as to whether, an association consisting offilm distributors and exhibitors incorporated as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 was liable to be taxed in respect of (a) admission

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

property because such notionally determined value apparently did not have any relevance for determination of total income of the assessee for the relevant year. We therefore have no hesitation in holding that for the reasons set out in the Para 4.3 of the impugned order, the AO’s order could not be said to be held as erroneous and prejudicial

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

House property. However, as the same have been claimed as a deduction under the head of business income and receipts disclosed under that head, I see no good reason for the impugned disallowance. The action of the Ld. AO in the matter is therefore held to be unsustainable in the facts of the case, and is directed to be deleted

M/S HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

111 TT J (Del) 11 it has been held that the assessee company sold its one unit to another company as a going concern along with all tangible and intangible assets including goodwill, licences and liabilities, against a lump sum consideration and the transferee acquired absolute ownership and full control over the running business of the undertaking. There

D.C.I.T., CIR-12, KOLKATA vs. M/S. B O C INDIA LTD.,

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House, P-43, V/s. Kolkata, 3 Taratala Road, Kolkata- Government Place 700 088 (West), Kolkata-01 [PAN No.AAACB 2528 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Basant Gadhyan, Advocate Shri Hardik Lakhani, Advocate 11-03-2016 सुनवाई क" तार

M/S. B O C INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House, P-43, V/s. Kolkata, 3 Taratala Road, Kolkata- Government Place 700 088 (West), Kolkata-01 [PAN No.AAACB 2528 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Basant Gadhyan, Advocate Shri Hardik Lakhani, Advocate 11-03-2016 सुनवाई क" तार

KAUSHAL KISHORE BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-45(1), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

property, capital gains & income from other sources. The assessee has been investing in shares from which it earns long term and short term capital gain. In the current year, the assessee has claimed a deduction u/s 10(38) of Rs.3,66,536/- on account of long term capital gain/loss on listed securities. This capital gain included a long term capital

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

House International Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 112, 111 and 110/2018, dated 07.08.2018 (2018) 408 ITR 561 (MP), against which the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 31. Further we find that issuance of notice under section 133(6) of the Act tantamounts to be a sufficient enquiry as held

TUHINARA BEGUM,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

property did not materialise and therefore moneys were transferred back by cheque to the assessee’s ITA N0.2256/Kol/2014-Tuhinara Begum A.Y.2010-11 2 husband cash credit account. After transferring of the money by the assessee to her husband’s account still the balance amount of Rs.14,50,000/- remained in the assessee’s bank account. The assessee had returned

BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 115JB, which requires that any provision for diminution in value of any asset is required to be added back while 15 I.T.A. Nos. 111 & 98/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. computing book profit u/s 115JB. The Ld. CIT, DR therefore urged that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and the action

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 115JB, which requires that any provision for diminution in value of any asset is required to be added back while 15 I.T.A. Nos. 111 & 98/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. computing book profit u/s 115JB. The Ld. CIT, DR therefore urged that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and the action

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

111) 17.11.2014 – IV installment Rs. 11,82,905/- Total Rs.63,86,391/- 7. From perusal of the above detail, we notice that six months prior to the date of sale of property at Jamshedpur on 19/07/2013, assessee had already booked a flat at Gurgaon. As per the provisions of Section 54 of the Act, the assessee can claim the exemption/deduction

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

property. It follows that the Authority cannot pronounce any ruling on the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 92 of the Act. 14. In the light of the above discussion, the applicant has no option but to comply with the provisions of the Act including the legislation relating to transfer pricing, namely, sections

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Property & Investment Private Limited is in the nature of loan which was taken for business on various dates and the same have been made through proper banking channels. Further, it is also stated by the appellant that the said loan was taken for very short duration and hence the same was also repaid in the next financial year

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Property & Investment Private Limited is in the nature of loan which was taken for business on various dates and the same have been made through proper banking channels. Further, it is also stated by the appellant that the said loan was taken for very short duration and hence the same was also repaid in the next financial year