ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

123 to 125/LKW/2017 in Ravindra Deo Tyagi vs. Income Tax Officer decided on 30.11.2018 holds that such re-opening reasons in absence of any ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 4 taxable income having escaped assessment do not withstand the test of law as follows:- “7. Heard

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

123 to 125/LKW/2017 in Ravindra Deo Tyagi vs. Income Tax Officer decided on 30.11.2018 holds that such re-opening reasons in absence of any ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 4 taxable income having escaped assessment do not withstand the test of law as follows:- “7. Heard

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

123 to 125/LKW/2017 in Ravindra Deo Tyagi vs. Income Tax Officer decided on 30.11.2018 holds that such re-opening reasons in absence of any ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 4 taxable income having escaped assessment do not withstand the test of law as follows:- “7. Heard

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

SANJEEB KUMAR SINGH ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

House Property". (c) For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted the benefit of standard deduction @ 30% of the rental income as per section 24(a) against the rental income of Rs. 3,36,000/- .” 3. The first issue involved in this appeal of assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

property and its agricultural use need to be ascertained by the AO with reference to the documents and earlier year records. Accordingly the ld. CIT(A) disregarded the submission of the assessee by holding as under : “In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that owing to the omission on the part of the AO to conduct

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

123 of PB-2. No disallowance has been made qua section 80IA deduction claim in any of these assessments which have attained finality. That being so, we conclude that the Assessing Officer had taken only the plausible view in accepting the assessee’s section 80IA deduction claim in his assessment dated 30.03.2015 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The PCIT

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 54F of the Act has been made by the assessee and the sale consideration received from the property situated at Jharkhand has been applied for purchase of a flat at Gurgaon. The assessee has fulfilled the conditions prescribed u/s 54F of the Act and thus is eligible to claim deduction at Rs.41,55,508/-. We thus, fail to find

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

123/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to restrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee company during the year. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

123/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to restrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee company during the year. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

123/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to restrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee company during the year. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

123/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to restrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee company during the year. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

house / real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context of Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

house / real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context of Section

TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

123), Copy of PAN Card (141) copy of share application form (142), Copy of confirmation of Investment (143) 3. Artjani Tradelinks Private 2.50 Lacs 20,23,00,682/- Copy of Auditor's Report (144), Audited Limited (Page no. 148 of the Balance Sheet (148), Bank statement AAJCAD590K paper book) (156), Incorporation certificate (157), Income Tax Return Acknowledgement (158), Master' data

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

123/- made in respect of payments made to PD, Dubai and upheld the disallowance of payment of Rs.1,11,19,501/- made to ACTA Singapore. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are in further appeal before us. 2.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record. At the time of hearing

BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

123/- made in respect of payments made to PD, Dubai and upheld the disallowance of payment of Rs.1,11,19,501/- made to ACTA Singapore. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are in further appeal before us. 2.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record. At the time of hearing

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HO HUP SIMPLEX JV, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 692/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Ho Hup Simplex Jv [Pan: Aaaah 0653 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

123 TTJ 0689 : (2009) 23 DTR 0433 : (2009) 118 ITD 0336 : (2008) 24 SOT 0412 “After the amendment effected by Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1st April, 2000, the deduction under s. 80-IA(4) has become available to any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing, or (ii) maintaining and operating, or (iii) developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure