D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

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 9(1

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

Section 80IB(10) was claimed only in respect of the completed units. The claim was rejected principally on the ground that both the housing projects sanctioned simultaneously together constituted a single composite housing project and therefore deduction was not permissible since completion certificate for the entire housing project was not obtained by the assessee. On appeal this Tribunal allowed

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house in India\nwithin the time prescribed under Section 54(1), the deduction is bound to be\ngranted without reference to Section 54(2), which would come into operation\nonly in the event of failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the\nrequirement under Section 54(1). Mere non compliance of a procedural\nrequirement under Section

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

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 9(1

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

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 9(1

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

13, BT Road and that\nthe tenant had constructed and owned the commercial super\nstructure / factory over the said land and therefore this property\nalso was not hit by the proviso to Section 54F of the Act.\n7. The Ld. AR thereafter assailed the findings of the lower\nauthorities denying the exemption u/s 54F of the Act on the ground

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

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 9(1

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 24 (a) of rebate/ deduction of 30% is to be allowed from House Property Income”. 5. The issue relating to claim of the assessee for deduction on account of business expenses under various heads was decided by the ld. CIT(Appeal) vide paragraphs no. 13 to 18 of his impugned order, which read as under:- “13. The appellant

I.T.O(E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FUTURE EDUCATION RESCARCH TRUST., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & C.O.No.69/Kol/2013 (A/O Ita No.1031/Kol/2013) Assessment Year:2009-10

13 crores for the purpose of educational activities of trust as it was one of the ITA No.1031/Kol/2013 & CO. 69/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO(E)-II, Kol. Vs. Future Education & Research Trust. Page 5 condition in the sanction letter issued by the Axis bank. The property on which housing loan was availed by assessee has been given on rent free

ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

property”. Therefore, the assessee was owner of one residential house, which was at Lavasa and the other at Mumbai which was acquired on 19.11.2012 (hereinafter called the New Asset), hence beyond any doubt, the assessee has satisfied the conditions 8 & CO No.45/Kol/2018 Mrs. Ishita Mohatta Assessment Year: 2013-14 laid down in proviso (a)(i) to sub- section (1

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house but not maintaining separate books of account as required u/s 11(4A) of the Act. Therefore, the exemption claimed by assessee with regard to GH income was denied by AO. However we find that the business is held under trust and it is not separate from the assessee. So the provisions of section 11(4A) are not applicable

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

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

house for itself. Therefore, from the perspective of the recipient, if it were not something that he would have paid for, the activity should normally not be considered as an intra-group service under the arm's length principle. Given that Indian TP law differs from the OECD's approach in certain aspects with respect to the application

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

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

house for itself. Therefore, from the perspective of the recipient, if it were not something that he would have paid for, the activity should normally not be considered as an intra-group service under the arm's length principle. Given that Indian TP law differs from the OECD's approach in certain aspects with respect to the application

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

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

house for itself. Therefore, from the perspective of the recipient, if it were not something that he would have paid for, the activity should normally not be considered as an intra-group service under the arm's length principle. Given that Indian TP law differs from the OECD's approach in certain aspects with respect to the application

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

1,90,76,680/- by invoking his power of enhancement is bad in law. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 17.09.2013 declaring total income at NIL. The assessee the Indian Chamber of Commerce (in short ICC) is an association of industrialist, being a company registered u/s 25 of Companies Act as non-profit

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

1,90,76,680/- by invoking his power of enhancement is bad in law. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 17.09.2013 declaring total income at NIL. The assessee the Indian Chamber of Commerce (in short ICC) is an association of industrialist, being a company registered u/s 25 of Companies Act as non-profit

FALCON VINCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PR.CIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Falcon Vincon Private Limited Vs. Pr. Cit-3, Kolkata 102, Tower No.12, Shriram Sameeksha, New Gangamma Gudi Police Station Road, Naidu Layout, Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf3203C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

13. Before dealing with the respective contentions, we may state, in a summary form, scheme of the Act about the computation of the total income. Section 4 of the Act is the charging Section as per which the total income of an assessee, subject to statutory exemptions, is chargeable to tax. Section 14 of the Act enumerates five heads

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

house property, business loss, capital gains etc. while the income of the trust is to be computed as per the normal commercial principles by considering the receipt and expenditure for the relevant period. It is also stated that out of total receipts received in the relevant year at Rs.68,41,927/-, only Rs. 80,000/- was on account of donations