APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

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 9(1

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 9(1

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

E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Kolkata’s order dated 06.03.2019 passed in case No.509/CIT(A)-5/Circle-2(2)/18-19/Kol involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’ Case called twice. None appears at assessee

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

13. In nutshell, the AO held that assessee had undertaken only one project, which comprised of construction of row houses as well as flats, and, that the two were not separate projects, as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO concluded that assessee had undertaken a singular project consisting of construction of 611 residential units (i.e. 295 row houses

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

13. In Ground No. 3 of its appeal, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deemed rental income from the property at Qutub Institutional area, New Delhi. 14. In the balance-sheet filed along with the return of income, the investment in building

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)

e) To identify banks and facilitate in opening accounts. f) To discuss, negotiate with the banks to start factoring of Invoices of the new office. g) To search and appoint an accounting firm for doing the accounting works of the new firm. h) Finalize the software required for the working of the office. i) To setup stockyards for storing

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

section 10(23C)(vi). This approval was granted after the report of DDIT(E), JDIIT(E) and DIT(E). This approval was granted before the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3). 5.4 After the completion of assessment, the AO made a proposal to DIT(E) for cancellation of registration u/s. 12A. the DIT(E) after considering the submissions

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) ..

e) The assessee shall not purchase any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset or construct any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of 3 Years after the date of transfer of the original asset. Hence, on the date of sale

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

E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- These three Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s Cross Objection(s) (CO) ITA Nos. 217 to 219/Kol/2018 with CO Nos.94 to 96/Kol/2018 for assessment year(s) 2011-12 to 2013-14, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22 Kolkata’s separate order(s); all dated 07.11.2017 ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18

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

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

E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- These three Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s Cross Objection(s) (CO) ITA Nos. 217 to 219/Kol/2018 with CO Nos.94 to 96/Kol/2018 for assessment year(s) 2011-12 to 2013-14, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22 Kolkata’s separate order(s); all dated 07.11.2017 ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18

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

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

E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- These three Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s Cross Objection(s) (CO) ITA Nos. 217 to 219/Kol/2018 with CO Nos.94 to 96/Kol/2018 for assessment year(s) 2011-12 to 2013-14, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22 Kolkata’s separate order(s); all dated 07.11.2017 ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18

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

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]

E) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and hence not sustainable. 2. That the Appellant Association being engaged in the . advancement of object of general public utility was entitled to claim exemption since the amount charged by it for rendering services to its members and non-members were on cost to cost basis and was not significantly higher as stated

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]

E) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and hence not sustainable. 2. That the Appellant Association being engaged in the . advancement of object of general public utility was entitled to claim exemption since the amount charged by it for rendering services to its members and non-members were on cost to cost basis and was not significantly higher as stated

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) ..

e-Business Operations Pvt. Ltd since last several years. The rental income from the said property has all along been offered to tax under the head "Income from House Property" and assessed as such under scrutiny assessment (ii) It is submitted that the primary object clause of the Memorandum of Association does not state that the business of the Assessee