RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

sections. The contention of the assessee with regard to change of opinion was not accepted as in the case of the aassessee, summary assessment was completed u/s 143(1). The Ld. AO had reopened the case for assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on the basis of assessee's ITR for AY 2009-10, the completed assessment orders

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

sections. The contention of the assessee with regard to change of opinion was not accepted as in the case of the aassessee, summary assessment was completed u/s 143(1). The Ld. AO had reopened the case for assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on the basis of assessee's ITR for AY 2009-10, the completed assessment orders

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

sections. The contention of the assessee with regard to change of opinion was not accepted as in the case of the aassessee, summary assessment was completed u/s 143(1). The Ld. AO had reopened the case for assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on the basis of assessee's ITR for AY 2009-10, the completed assessment orders

ALOK GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD.28(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

section 48(2) of the Act and so also proper deduction u/s 54 of the Act be allowed for investment in new house 2 Alok Ghosh, AYs: 2016-17 property. Hence it is prayed that arbitrary addition of Rs.13,23,960/- be directed to be deleted from the head of "Long Term Capital Gain" by making correct computation by allowing

SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

154 to 156/Gau/2019, dated 06.07.2022) that the aforesaid amendment was clarificatory in nature and would apply retrospectively. Accordingly, the explanation was applicable to AY 2016-17 and dismissed this ground of appeal. 4.3 During the course of appeal before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) Vs. Era Infrastructure

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

154 of the Act and carried out the proceedings. One of the apparent mistakes noticed by the ld. Assessing Officer was that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act but this Section relates to profit on sale of property used for residence and cannot apply on the case of the assessee where agricultural land has been sold

KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

House” 14, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700019 Telephone: 2287-3067/8737/1816 Fax No.: (033) 2287-2577/7089 KPLC/IT/2018-19 August 24, 2023 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-l Coimbatore Dear Sir, PAN: AABCK3342D ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DIN: ITBA/APL/F/APL 1/2023-24/1055203146(1), DATED 17/08/2023 2 Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. APPEAL NO, CIT(A), Kolkata-4/10179/2019-20 This has reference

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

154-156,157-159). 6. There was again revaluation of property on 6.8.2011 by the registered valuer who valued the property at Rs. 90,00,00,000/- (vide paper book page 160-166). 7. The property as revalued at Rs. 90,00,00,000/- as on 6.8.2011 was given effect in FY 2011-12 appears in the balance sheet

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

154-156,157-159). 6. There was again revaluation of property on 6.8.2011 by the registered valuer who valued the property at Rs. 90,00,00,000/- (vide paper book page 160-166). 7. The property as revalued at Rs. 90,00,00,000/- as on 6.8.2011 was given effect in FY 2011-12 appears in the balance sheet

BHAIRABNALA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,KALNA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

154 of the Act before the ld. CIT(A), but failed to succeed as the ld. CIT(A) held that firstly the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for the alleged interest income, the issue which is pointed out is not apparent mistake subject to rectification and lastly directed the ld.AO that

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

154 of the Act was passed on 11 July 2022 without providing for credit of foreign taxes. Subsequently, another rectification order was passed on 08 August 2022 again without providing the claim of foreign taxes. Additionally, the loss from house property which was carried forward has also been denied. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee

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

154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018] in which the\nfacts were that the assessee was engaged, in the business of finance,\ninvestment and dealing in shares and securities. It held\nshares/securities in two portfolios: (a) as investment on capital account;\nand, (b) as trading assets

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Housing Projects Limited reported in 343 ITR 349 and DIT –vs.- Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 488. f) The fifth proposition of the ld. A.R. is with regard to the fact that the values adopted by the stamp duty authorities were highly excessive and did not reflect the true and correct market reality. The ld. A.R. submitted that

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

154 Properties (P) Ltd. (Kol) ITAT, Kolkata Bench Vs. PCIT Shringar Marketing (2021) 190 ITD 16 The Hon’ble 155 – 174 (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (Kol) ITAT, Kolkata 'A' Bench Argument:- Case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal holding the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2012 to be prospective Starpoint (2022) 94 ITR_TRIB

VAIBHAV DAS MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 90 of Income Tax Act 1961 for avoidance of double taxation and granting of credit of taxes paid outside India on income which is taxed outside India even after claiming the details of foreign tax credit in Income Tax Return filed before the Income Tax Authority. 7. For that AO and CIT (A) erred in not following the spirit

NORMURA RESEARCH INSTITURE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

154/- and adjusted suo moto in the total income of the assessee reported in form 3CED. 4.11.Ld. TPO vide its order dated 31.12.2015 passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act, accepted TNMM as the MAM for determining ALP of the international transactions. Amongst 16 Normura Research Institute Financial Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 other things, Ld. TPO included

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

154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018] in which the\nfacts were that the assessee was engaged, in the business of finance,\ninvestment and dealing in shares and securities. It held\nshares/securities in two portfolios: (a) as investment on capital account;\nPage 36\nITA

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

property, goods or service has been acquired under similar market conditions. It is also settled that choice of tested party is of lesser significance for the purpose of application of CUP method but instead key factor in application of CUP is product comparability and similar market conditions. Further the CUP method can be classified into two categories i.e. internal