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

124 taxmann.com 74) (ITAT Bangalore) (v) M/s Kancast Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (55 taxmann.com 171) (ITAT Pune) (vi) Voltas Ltd. v. ITO (74 taxmann.com 99) (ITAT Mum) (vii) Shri Farid Gulmohammed vs. ITO (ITA No. 5136/Mum/2014) (ITAT Mum) (viii) ITO vs Yasin Moosa Godil (20 taxmann.com 424) (ITAT Ahmedabad) (ix) ACIT vs. Nadir Nazarali Dhanani (ITA No. 100/Mum/2013) (ITAT

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]

124. As stated above, it is a clear case of tax evasion by both the Assessee and the Group Companies and the Compensation received Group Companies and the Compensation received is taxable as “income from other is taxable as “income from other sources” u/s 56 as per the discussion made in the earlier portions of this assessment sources

PARVESH SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1388/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Parvesh Sharma,……………………………...……Appellant 106, B.T. Road, Rajbari, Bonhooghly, Kolkata-700108, West Bengal [Pan:Bmpps3173Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, W.B.

sections 24(b) and 80C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the two properties are in the names of Parvesh Sharma and Rohini Sharma. Therefore, the appellant’s assertion that there is no co-owner of the properties is factually incorrect. Furthermore, the appellant claims to have enclosed the purchase deeds for both properties, however, the documents submitted

PIYUSH MOHAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

property as on 19.03.2006. The Ld. PCIT noted that in the computation of LTCG, the assessee had debited an amount of Rs.30,38,124/- on account of expenses made directly related to sale of flat. According to 2 Piyush Mohan Agarwal, AY 2016-17 him, the amount of Rs.30,38,124/- was paid on account of repayment of housing loan

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue(in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

124 page 31(SC). ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal is justified in law in holding service charge received as business income instead of House Property without considering the decision of the latest Judgment reported in 249 ITR 47 (Cal). We are unable to admit the appeal as it is recorded

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue(in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

124 page 31(SC). ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal is justified in law in holding service charge received as business income instead of House Property without considering the decision of the latest Judgment reported in 249 ITR 47 (Cal). We are unable to admit the appeal as it is recorded

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-. 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project; The issue has been examined by the Board. It has been decided that widening of an existing road by constructing additional lanes as a part of a highway project by an undertaking would be regarded as a new infrastructure facility for the purpose of section

D.C.I.T, CIR-2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT., KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

property of the hirer or confer on the hirer an option to purchase the equipment , the transactions should be regarded as one of hire purchase. In such case the periodical payments made by the hirer should for tax purposes be regarded as made up of :- a) Consideration for hire, to be allowed as a deduction in the assessment (i.e interest

D.C.I.T, CIR-2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

property of the hirer or confer on the hirer an option to purchase the equipment , the transactions should be regarded as one of hire purchase. In such case the periodical payments made by the hirer should for tax purposes be regarded as made up of :- a) Consideration for hire, to be allowed as a deduction in the assessment (i.e interest

PRICE WATERHOUSE COPPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

property of the hirer or confer on the hirer an option to purchase the equipment , the transactions should be regarded as one of hire purchase. In such case the periodical payments made by the hirer should for tax purposes be regarded as made up of :- a) Consideration for hire, to be allowed as a deduction in the assessment (i.e interest

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management\n(P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\ndated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule\n8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-.\n7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. D I C INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house Coopers as part of the documents and information kept and maintained by it. Rule 10D(e) casts a responsibility on the assessee to keep and maintain information and documents regarding description of functions performed by the assessee and its AEs involved in the international transactions. In this context, reference is made to Part-IV of the Report submitted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house Coopers as part of the documents and information kept and maintained by it. Rule 10D(e) casts a responsibility on the assessee to keep and maintain information and documents regarding description of functions performed by the assessee and its AEs involved in the international transactions. In this context, reference is made to Part-IV of the Report submitted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management\n(P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\ndated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule\n8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-.\n7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management\n(P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\ndated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule\n8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-.\n7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management\n(P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\ndated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule\n8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-.\n7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management\n(P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\ndated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule\n8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-.\n7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted