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

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S MACHINO TECHNO (SALES) PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

145(2) of the Act have not been regularly followed by the Assessee. The AO has to compute income from business accounting to the books of accounts of the Assessee. It is only when the book results are rejected the question of estimation of income arises for consideration. The AO has to specifically point out the defects in the books

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

145 which Provides for either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee is applicable in relation to income chargeable under the head 'Profit and Gains of Business or profession' or 'Income from Other sources'. The computation of income from let out house property is to be made as per sections 23(b) & 23(c) which prescribe

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

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

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

145, all anticipated losses are to be taken into account in computing business income—That the assessee has suffered loss in holding contract of interest rate swap is not in dispute nor is there any dispute on the discounting factor—Assessee is entitled to deduction of loss on account of valuation of interest rate swap subject to the rider that

DCIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEWARI WAREHOUSING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Dcit, Circle-26 M/S Tewari Warehousing Co. बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan Hide Shed Dump, Old V/S. Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Goragacha Road, Kolkata-88 Road, (South), [Pan No.Aacft 5579 K] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Vikash Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit, Range- 53, Kolkata U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Entire Gross Receipts S Business Income & Allow Deductions As Per Section 28 To 43 Of The It Act When Rental Income Of Rs.2,31,00,000/- Was Already Included In The Gross Receipts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Estimation Of Business Profits Of Rs.2,37,72,132/- Made By The Ao Though Rejection Of Assessee’S Books Of Account U/S 145(3) Considering The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Contrary To The Law & Fact Of The Case. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To, Add To, Alter Or Modify Any One Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Above.”

Section 28 to 43 of the IT Act when rental income of Rs.2,31,00,000/- was already included in the gross receipts. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the estimation of business profits of Rs.2,37,72,132/- made by the AO though rejection of assessee’s books of account u/s 145(3) considering the facts

TARAKESWAR VIVEKANANDA PALLY SEVA KENDRA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11

145(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter on appeal. The First Appellate Authority enhanced the assessment and dismissed the case of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before me. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the papers on record I note the following facts : 5.1. The assessee is a registered

M/S H.C. COMMERCIAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN.CIR.-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. H. C. Commercial Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Middleton Row, Kolkata- Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- 700071. 2(1), Kolkata. (Pan: Aabch2665N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1037682272(1) Dated 10.12.2021 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Central Circle-2(1),Kolkata Dated 28.01.2016. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: 1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A)-20, Kolkata On 10.12.2021 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.Lt.(A) Was Wrong In Dittoing The Order Of The A.O. & Confirming The Disallowance U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii), 0.5% Of Average Investment Amounting To Rs.5,00,482/- (Rs.9,00,375/- Minus Rs.4,00,563/-) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That The A.O. Was Not Deducted The Income From Which Is Taxable During The Year & The Amount Of Rs.400,563/- Has Already Added Back To The Return Income, So, Rs.5,00,482/- Cannot Be Part For The Disallowance & Wrongly Calculated U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal.

section 24 of the Act. Ld. AO held that since the assessee is allowed deduction @ 30% as expenses from the income earned from the house property, this expense is not allowable against the income from house property. Accordingly, he held that the claim of this expense is not admissible u/s. 23 and 24 of the Act as debited

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

house projects, barrack projects, health centre project and other. Since, the projects awarded to the assessee were government project, the assessee after looking into the size and nature of business of the company gave labour contract for Hard Rock Chiselling using rock hammers and chisels, stacking on road side for pipe line trenches, carting excess earth and other similar labour

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

house projects, barrack projects, health centre project and other. Since, the projects awarded to the assessee were government project, the assessee after looking into the size and nature of business of the company gave labour contract for Hard Rock Chiselling using rock hammers and chisels, stacking on road side for pipe line trenches, carting excess earth and other similar labour

LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

2. The first issue in ITA No. 87/K/2012 in the case of LMJ Overseas Ltd. is as regards to rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness

LMJ OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

2. The first issue in ITA No. 87/K/2012 in the case of LMJ Overseas Ltd. is as regards to rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness

M/S LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

2. The first issue in ITA No. 87/K/2012 in the case of LMJ Overseas Ltd. is as regards to rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness

LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

2. The first issue in ITA No. 87/K/2012 in the case of LMJ Overseas Ltd. is as regards to rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness

M/S LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

2. The first issue in ITA No. 87/K/2012 in the case of LMJ Overseas Ltd. is as regards to rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness

LMJ OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

2. The first issue in ITA No. 87/K/2012 in the case of LMJ Overseas Ltd. is as regards to rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness