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

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

House property of Rs.275,10,000/-. Record also further revealed that business income of the assessee included interest of Rs.23082.71 lakhs received from deposits accounts with scheduled banks (deposits of Rs.363727.68 lakhs as on 31/03/2007). Now as per Income Tax Act. Interest on fixed deposit accounts with scheduled banks was an income under the head "Income from other sources" with

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

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

House property of Rs.275,10,000/-. Record also further revealed that business income of the assessee included interest of Rs.23082.71 lakhs received from deposits accounts with scheduled banks (deposits of Rs.363727.68 lakhs as on 31/03/2007). Now as per Income Tax Act. Interest on fixed deposit accounts with scheduled banks was an income under the head "Income from other sources" with

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

3 SCC 676, that the section applies, and this is what is meant by the expression 'of the nature referred to in section 53A'. This expression cannot be stretched to refer to an amendment that was made years later in 2001, so as to then say that though registration of a contract is required by the Amendment

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

3 SCC 676, that the section applies, and this is what is meant by the expression 'of the nature referred to in section 53A'. This expression cannot be stretched to refer to an amendment that was made years later in 2001, so as to then say that though registration of a contract is required by the Amendment

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144C(5) of the Act dated 15.10.2015 for the Asst Year 2011-12. 2. Though the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal before us with regard to the transfer pricing addition, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the determination of the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) in the instant case

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

DULARI DEVI HETAMSARIA, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHYAM SUNDER HETAMSARIA,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1290/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

house building/show room (copy of the letter has already been sent). The DVO has sent the dossier of valuation report of the properties to this office The DVO has sent the dossier of valuation report of the properties to this office The DVO has sent the dossier of valuation report of the properties to this office vide File No. 20/EE/Val/Ranchi/IT/2010

SATTAR ALI,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

house property Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show-cause notices issued during the course of said proceedings was not found acceptable by him, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.8,41,190/- under section

SHRI KAMAL KUMAR BANSAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

house property” on account of disallowance of property tax. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to show-cause notice issued during the course of the said proceedings was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer, he imposed a penalty of Rs.66

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

house property, (D).-Profits\nand gains of business or profession, (E).-Capital gains, (F).-Income\nfrom other sources.'\nAs per section 56 of the Act, 'Income' would be 'Income from other\nsources' as per the provision of Section 56, which reads as follows.\n'Section 56. Income from other sources\n'Income of every kind which

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

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

house for themselves and hence, the value of the aforesaid services in comparable uncontrolled transactions could not be 'Nil'. Such a view has also been confirmed and endorsed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Kolkata Tribunal in the case of N LC Nalco India Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 10, Kolkata [2016] 71 taxmann.com57 (Kolkata - Trib

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

house for themselves and hence, the value of the aforesaid services in comparable uncontrolled transactions could not be 'Nil'. Such a view has also been confirmed and endorsed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Kolkata Tribunal in the case of N LC Nalco India Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 10, Kolkata [2016] 71 taxmann.com57 (Kolkata - Trib

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

house property, long term capital gain (LTCG), short term capital gain (STCG) and other sources”. During the year under consideration, assessee failed to disclose certain income in her return of income and for the same the AO has made the addition in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The detail of such income

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

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

M/S JALAN CEMENT WORKS LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jalan Cement Works V/S. Cit, Kolkata-1 Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No Aayakar Bhawan, 202, 81, Netji Subhas Road, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 001 Square, Kolkata- [Pan No.: Aaacj6788R] 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

House property, capital gains and income from other sources. In the instant case the income of the assessee is mainly from long term capital gain, therefore it is out of the purview of the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. Income here means the net income. In this connection we rely in the order of Hon’ble High Court

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

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

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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

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