PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Properties vs. Director of Income-tax (supra). The contention of the assessee in this case was that, the order framed on the directions given by the DDIT u/s 144A of the Act, could not be revised u/s 263 of the Act, as to the extent, the Assessing Officer could not be said to have applied his mind. The Tribunal held

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

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Properties vs. DCIT (138 ITD 278) the A/R of the assessee claimed that it was prevented by factors beyond its control and therefore the beneficial deduction should not be denied on technical grounds. Having considered the relevant decision of the ITAT I am however unable to agree with the A/R's contentions. In the case decided by ITAT Pune

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

150/- to tax. 4. The assessee stated before the ld CITA that the date of transfer of old house at Sector 39 was held by the ld AO erroneously as 29.6.2011 instead of 26.5.2011. It was submitted that on 26.5.2011, the assessee lost his beneficial right, title and interest in the property and started receiving payments for the sale consideration

M/S IFGL REFRACTORIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,(OSD)-WARD-6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

House 3, Netaji Subhas Road Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AABCI 7391 C] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Ward-6(2) Kolkata…............……..…....Respondent Appearances by: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT, D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 19th, 2020 Date of pronouncing

SHALINI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

house property of the assessee was not completed within the prescribed period, was of the view that the deduction allowed under section 54F was liable to be withdrawn in assessment year 2015-16 in which three years had expired from the date of transfer. He accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to tax the capital gains of Rs.77

JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 issued by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was without jurisdiction and the order passed on the basis of such notice was bad in law hence the same be quashed and or annulled. JKS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Assessment

HARIT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Section 2(1A)(c), Agriculture Income includes any income derived from the building owned & occupied by the receiver of the rent or revenue of any such land provided that the building is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land and is used as a dwelling house or as a store house of the agriculture produce. 4. That

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

house property within the stipulated time limit as set out in Section 54 of the Act and thus substantively complied with the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 15. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 5,99,150/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

House Property. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred by not appreciating the facts that the assessee Page 3 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 977/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 AMRI Hospitals Ltd. company was required to provide additional services and facilities other than just its property given on rent

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property, the assessee was not entitled to anything over and above the agreed rent. The said action of the AO has resulted in taxing notional income in the hands of the assessee, which never accrued and hence cannot be brought to tax. Accordingly, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and hence

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

150 91,626,428 IT services 1b - 161,905,984 175,633,946 Export support services 1c - 30,295,333 40,199,406 Management support services (paid to TDK Electronic Components S.A. (‘TDK Malaga’) 2 Export of ferrites for consumption 25,710,000 NIL 3 Disallowance of provision for slow moving and 13,200,000 NIL non-moving inventory

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

150 91,626,428 IT services 1b - 161,905,984 175,633,946 Export support services 1c - 30,295,333 40,199,406 Management support services (paid to TDK Electronic Components S.A. (‘TDK Malaga’) 2 Export of ferrites for consumption 25,710,000 NIL 3 Disallowance of provision for slow moving and 13,200,000 NIL non-moving inventory

M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

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

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

house property of the assessee was not completed within the prescribed period, was of the view that the deduction allowed under section 54F was liable to be withdrawn in assessment year 2015-16 in which three years had expired from the date of transfer. He accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to tax the capital gains of Rs.77

M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

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

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

house property of the assessee was not completed within the prescribed period, was of the view that the deduction allowed under section 54F was liable to be withdrawn in assessment year 2015-16 in which three years had expired from the date of transfer. He accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to tax the capital gains of Rs.77

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

House property. However, as the same have been claimed as a deduction under the head of business income and receipts disclosed under that head, I see no good reason for the impugned disallowance. The action of the Ld. AO in the matter is therefore held to be unsustainable in the facts of the case, and is directed to be deleted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

150, then the amount of deduction under section 80-IB will be restricted to Rs. 100 as per the mandate of section 80A which provides that the deductions shall be allowed from the gross total income and the aggregate amount of all the deductions shall not in any case exceed the gross total income of the assessee. If however

ACIT, CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. RESHMI P LOYALKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the Cross Objection of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

property, deed of plots of land, occupation certificate of constructed residential houses and copy of receipt of cess issued by District Town Planner, Cum- Member Secretary, Composition Committee, Gurgaon. The assessee also produced copy of bills raised by the supplier of building construction material, copy of bills raised by interior decorator, copy of acknowledgement of cheque/ draft receipt

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

House at Chowringhee, Kolkata consisting of total area of the property 35.60 kottah. The assessee has sold its property for a composite consideration of Rs. 21 crores on dated 28th June 2001 to M/s Reliance Industries Limited. The sale price for the land was considered at Rs. 17,92,41,908/- and balance