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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) and u/s 142(1) of the Act along with\nquestionnaire were issued and served to the assessee. The reason\nfor selection in scrutiny in this case was large deduction claimed\nu/s 54F of the Act. The assessee during the year had sold\n36,00,000 shares of Emami Ltd. on 13.07.2020at total sale\nconsideration

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Housing Development Corporation Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 316, the assessment is liable to be annulled. 6. In these circumstances, as notice u/s.143(2) has not been issued in respect of the valid revised return filed by the assessee u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014, the consequential Assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2014 for the AY 2012-13, in the case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Housing Development Corporation Ltd. reported\nin 343 ITR 316, the assessment is liable to be annulled.\n6. In these circumstances, as notice_u/s.143(2) has not been\nissued in respect of the valid revised return filed by the\nassessee_u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014, the consequential Assessment\nOrder_u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2014 for the AY 2012-13, in the case

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

house properties' on the dissolution of the firm on 13-3-1961. In the memo of Page 8 of 18 I.T.A. No.: 1572/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chandra Bros. adjustment for income-tax purposes, however, the above sum was deducted on the ground that it was not assessable either as revenue or capital. The ITO issued a notice under section

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

144 read with respect to section 263 of the Act. However, when the document were supplied to the assessee, the copy of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, if any, issued/served upon the assessee, was not supplied. Further, the assessee specifically requested to provide the copy of notice u/s 143(2) and proof of service, inviting attention

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

144/- and, accordingly, recomputed the LTCG at Rs.36,18,119/- in respect of the said property, which was added to the total income. For the property at Aurangabad (Dag Nos.206 & 207), the 4 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 property was sold on 19.03.2012 relevant to F.Y. 2011-12 vide registered sale deed at a total consideration of Rs.18

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

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

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

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

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

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

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

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

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

property belongs to\nthe Lessor and not to the assessee. The assessee can not claim depreciation\nalso. Considering the factual position, we are of the view that order passed\nby the Id CIT (A) does not contain any infirmity. Therefore, we confirm the\norder of ld. CIT(A). and Ground No. 2 of the appeal is\ndismissed.\n8. Ground

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

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

144 ITD 141 (Kolkata -Trib.)\nb. DCIT v. Ashish Jhunjhunwala (I.T.A No. 1809/Kol/2012)\nc. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd vs. DCIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com\n117 (Kolkata)\nd. Relaxo Footwear Ltd. v. ACIT [(2012) 50 SOT 102 (Del ITAT)\ne. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation\nLtd [2023] 149 taxmann.com 181 (Calcutta)\nf. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. DCIT

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

144 ITD 141 (Kolkata -Trib.)\nb. DCIT v. Ashish Jhunjhunwala (I.Τ.Α No. 1809/Kol/2012)\nc. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd vs. DCIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com\n117 (Kolkata)\nd. Relaxo Footwear Ltd. v. ACIT [(2012) 50 SOT 102 (Del ITAT)\ne. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation\nLtd [2023] 149 taxmann.com 181 (Calcutta)\nf. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. DCIT

POINEER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 467/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Pioneer Property Management Limited,…….Appellant 1St Floor, 10A, Rowdon Street, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaccp5904H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Circle-7(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 07, 2024 O R D E R

2 Pioneer Property Management Limited 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.43,47,936/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee-company was engaged in the business of brokerage

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

144 ITD 141 (Kolkata -Trib.)\nb. DCIT v. Ashish Jhunjhunwala (I.Τ.Α No. 1809/Kol/2012)\nc. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd vs. DCIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com\n117 (Kolkata)\nd. Relaxo Footwear Ltd. v. ACIT [(2012) 50 SOT 102 (Del ITAT)\ne. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation\nLtd [2023] 149 taxmann.com 181 (Calcutta)\nf. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. DCIT

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

144 ITD 141 (Kolkata -Trib.)\nb. DCIT v. Ashish Jhunjhunwala (I.Τ.Α No. 1809/Kol/2012)\nc. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd vs. DCIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com\n117 (Kolkata)\nd. Relaxo Footwear Ltd. v. ACIT [(2012) 50 SOT 102 (Del ITAT)\ne. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation\nLtd [2023] 149 taxmann.com 181 (Calcutta)\nf. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. DCIT

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

144 ITD 141 (Kolkata -Trib.)\nb. DCIT v. Ashish Jhunjhunwala (I.Τ.Α No. 1809/Kol/2012)\nc. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd vs. DCIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com\n117 (Kolkata)\nd. Relaxo Footwear Ltd. v. ACIT [(2012) 50 SOT 102 (Del ITAT)\ne. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation\nLtd [2023] 149 taxmann.com 181 (Calcutta)\nf. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. DCIT