KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

House” 14, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700019 Telephone: 2287-3067/8737/1816 Fax No.: (033) 2287-2577/7089 KPLC/IT/2018-19 August 24, 2023 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-l Coimbatore Dear Sir, PAN: AABCK3342D ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DIN: ITBA/APL/F/APL 1/2023-24/1055203146(1), DATED 17/08/2023 2 Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. APPEAL NO, CIT(A), Kolkata-4/10179/2019-20 This has reference

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI RATAN KUMAR SAHA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Acit, Cir-49(1&2), Kolkata 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Vs. Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Vs. 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax, 1961 Dated 30.12.2016. Consequent To That Another Cross Appeal Is Also Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 154/Kol/2020 Against The Same Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Enumerated As Under: Assessee’S Ground: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Grossly Unjustified In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,69,590/- Under The Head A.Y. 2014-15

section 50C of the IT Act. However, the assessee had not disclosed any such information in his return. A.Y. 2014-15 3. During the course of hearing, the assessee accepted the transaction as a case of transfer of property on relinquishment of assets or extinguishment of right to claim as the asset is an agricultural land the gain

SHRI RATAN KUMAR SAHA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1&2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Acit, Cir-49(1&2), Kolkata 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Vs. Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Vs. 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax, 1961 Dated 30.12.2016. Consequent To That Another Cross Appeal Is Also Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 154/Kol/2020 Against The Same Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Enumerated As Under: Assessee’S Ground: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Grossly Unjustified In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,69,590/- Under The Head A.Y. 2014-15

section 50C of the IT Act. However, the assessee had not disclosed any such information in his return. A.Y. 2014-15 3. During the course of hearing, the assessee accepted the transaction as a case of transfer of property on relinquishment of assets or extinguishment of right to claim as the asset is an agricultural land the gain

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2005-06

112 ITD 57). The facts of this case were pare-materia with the appellant's case. ITC Ltd had shifted Plant & Machinery from one unit to another. The purpose for shifting of machinery to another unit was efficient utilization of the plant. Tribunal found that the shifting of the plant did not result in acquisition of new assets

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

Housing Projects Limited reported in 343 ITR 349 and DIT –vs.- Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 488. f) The fifth proposition of the ld. A.R. is with regard to the fact that the values adopted by the stamp duty authorities were highly excessive and did not reflect the true and correct market reality. The ld. A.R. submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

112 taxmann.com 322 (SC) has held that disallowances u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income of relevant year. The appellant has stated that since the assessee company has earned exempt income to the tune of Rs. 8,774/- in the relevant year. Therefore, the addition made on account of disallowances u/s 14A is to be restricted

M/S. SHIMMER TEXTILES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-12(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

house property and income of Rs. 31,11,681/- declared in the return for AY 2011- 12 furnished on 22.09.211. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2014 assessing income at Rs. 57,25,440/-. Thereafter the additions made in the assessment order were challenged by the assessee to the higher appellate forum and vide order dated

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., 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.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

house property for Rs.11,00,000/- cannot treat the same as cash credit. Suspicion cannot replace the real evidential documents. Simply by arguing it to be a case of manipulation the Revenue is not supposed to succeed in their contention without proper evidence. Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT (2005) 6 SOT 245 (Mumbai), Asstt. CIT vs. Claridges Investments & Finances

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Property and other sources. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issue to initiate the proceedings u/s 143(3). The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.02.2006 by determining total income at Rs.26,16,24,330/- by making certain addition and disallowance. The assessee, for the year under consideration also claimed

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Property and other sources. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issue to initiate the proceedings u/s 143(3). The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.02.2006 by determining total income at Rs.26,16,24,330/- by making certain addition and disallowance. The assessee, for the year under consideration also claimed

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Property and other sources. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issue to initiate the proceedings u/s 143(3). The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.02.2006 by determining total income at Rs.26,16,24,330/- by making certain addition and disallowance. The assessee, for the year under consideration also claimed

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

VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. WARD 33(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 695/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vijay Shankar Pandey,………………..………Appellant 4/7A, Commerce House, 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan:Afspp7040Q] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,……………….…..….…....Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10 Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Ms. Sarita Chobey, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

property as per Stamp Duty Authority from the consideration amount shall not be chargeable to Income tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on or before 19.11.2018. However, the assessee did not file any explanation in this regard till date. In absence

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.

Section 194) On various dates Rs.70,00,000/- 2. Deposited cash of Rs. 10,00,000 or On various dates Rs.14,04,700/- more in a saving bank account 3. Deposit in Cash aggregating On various dates Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.2,00,00/- or more, with a Banking company 4. Purchase of immovable property On various dates Rs.1

M/S. BENGAL EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ]

houses and beautification .of Mission More, etc. Thus, the entire development expenditure of Rs.26,62,332 on which deduction under section 35E was claimed was not in the nature of expense incurred for development of Mines and accordingly the' deduction under section 35E of the Act was not admissible to the assessee. The expenses incurred .in the past on account

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

112 & 113/Kol/2018 Ramesh Chandra K. Shah Vs. ACIT for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 order dated 12.02.2019 wherein the Tribunal has held that the scrip of M/s. TTML is not a bogus scrip. We note that in this case the Tribunal has held as under: “10. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

112 to tax, after setting off brought forward losses of Rs.2,240,274. The Assessee also claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 44,04,830. The said return was filed by the Assessee, on the basis that, its entire profits from execution of contract with GRSE, were attributable to its PE in India. As such, the entire profits after setting

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

112 to tax, after setting off brought forward losses of Rs.2,240,274. The Assessee also claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 44,04,830. The said return was filed by the Assessee, on the basis that, its entire profits from execution of contract with GRSE, were attributable to its PE in India. As such, the entire profits after setting