SRI SHANKAR PRADHAN,ASANSOL vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

house property” after allowing deduction under section 24 of the Act of Rs.12,600/- from the annual rent of Rs.42,000/-. 4. During the year under consideration, the assessee had shown to have received two gifts of Rs.50,000/- in cash, one from mother of Rs.20,000/- and other of Rs.30,000/- from his brother. On verification, the Assessing Officer

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/

163 of the Paper Book which was submitted in appeal. It was argued that as the new business was set up at least on 12th May 2003, the appellant had admittedly had taken a rented office at Mumbai since September 2003, and that therefore in such factual Circumstances, the following revenue, expenses incurred by the Appellant Company at its Mumbai

ACIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JITENDRA SETH, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/S. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Ajhs 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed In Case No. 749/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2014-15/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Commission Paid Of ₹51,56,694/- As Well As Partly Restricting Section 54F Deduction Disallowance To ₹42,39,181/- Out Of ₹56,52,242/-; Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

163 and the indexed cost of the property was determined at Rs.74,93,295. Thus the capital gains was determined at Rs.173,46,704/-. Out of this the assessee invested Rs.50,00,000 was deposited in bonds eligible u/s. 54FC of the IT act 1961 and the balance amount of capital gains of Rs.1,23,46,704 was liable

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

163-170 of Judicial PB]; (iii) Dy.CIT vs K.S. Diesels Ltd (132 taxmann.com 74) [ITAT Mumbai] [Pages 171 -176 of Judicial PB]. 9. Ld. A.R. also referred to the reconciliation of the details of reversals during the year vis-a-vis the provisions made in earlier years alongwith details of disallowances made under section 43B of the Act in those

SHRI VIJAY MAHIPAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

property of the assessee stands which is found located at the bye-lane of Sister Nivedita Road at Gurung Busty, Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri and which is also found can be viewed opposite of the location of the office premises of West Bengal State Electricity Board, Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri. The structure of the building is found with building plan for Ground

JAGANNATH GUPTA FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini

163 taxman 19 (All). He referred to para no- 34 and argued that the scope for conducting enquiry by the CIT(E) u/sec 12AA (3) of the Act, that CIT(E) has to satisfy that the activities of the Assessee are genuine and being carried out in consonance with the objects of the Trust or institution and the enquiry regarding

JAN PRIYA TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.(EXEMPTION)-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jan Priya Trust Vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward- (Pan: Aaatj0335M) 1(1), Kolkata.

property. If both the decisions are carefully read, it becomes evident that any expenditure which is in the shape of application of income is not to be taken into account. Having found that trust is entitled to exemption under section 11 (1), we are to go to the stage of income before application thereof and taken into account

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Property Management Pvt. Ltd (2023) 151 taxmann.com 103 (Calcutta), pronounced on 31.03.2023 and stated that the order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2023 being after the effective date of amendment by way of Explanation 2 to section 263 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, it was a valid ground for exercising the revisionary power under section 263 as conditions

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

property of the principal who continues to be the owner of the goods and will therefore be liable to account for the sale proceeds. 24. Further, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Intervet India (P.) Ltd [2014] 49 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay) held that as regards sales promotional expenditure in question, the provisions of Expln

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

property of the principal who continues to be the owner of the goods and will therefore be liable to account for the sale proceeds. 24. Further, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Intervet India (P.) Ltd [2014] 49 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay) held that as regards sales promotional expenditure in question, the provisions of Expln

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

house when the building went for re-development. Now the question before is whether the compensation upon re-development of property towards hardship, rehabilitation and shifting received by the assessee is taxable if the potential TDR/FSI is available to the land owner or society which owns the land depending upon the terms of the re-development agreement without transferring

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

M/S. EUREKA FORBES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL.CIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

section 14A, and R.W.R 8D (2)(iii) be considered of Rs.14.82 lacs. 13. Before the CIT(A), the assessee again submitted an analysis of amount of average investment (other than foreign and strategic investments), which are given below:- Particulars Opening- Closing- as on as on 01.04.2009 31.03.2010 Long Term Investments-Trade Investments-Quoted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EUREKA FORBES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

section 14A, and R.W.R 8D (2)(iii) be considered of Rs.14.82 lacs. 13. Before the CIT(A), the assessee again submitted an analysis of amount of average investment (other than foreign and strategic investments), which are given below:- Particulars Opening- Closing- as on as on 01.04.2009 31.03.2010 Long Term Investments-Trade Investments-Quoted

M/S. EUREKA FORBES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL.CIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

section 14A, and R.W.R 8D (2)(iii) be considered of Rs.14.82 lacs. 13. Before the CIT(A), the assessee again submitted an analysis of amount of average investment (other than foreign and strategic investments), which are given below:- Particulars Opening- Closing- as on as on 01.04.2009 31.03.2010 Long Term Investments-Trade Investments-Quoted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EUREKA FORBES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

section 14A, and R.W.R 8D (2)(iii) be considered of Rs.14.82 lacs. 13. Before the CIT(A), the assessee again submitted an analysis of amount of average investment (other than foreign and strategic investments), which are given below:- Particulars Opening- Closing- as on as on 01.04.2009 31.03.2010 Long Term Investments-Trade Investments-Quoted

SMT. NITA SETHIA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Nita Sethia V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 5, Janki Shah Road, 1St 3(3), 110, Shanti Pally, Floor, Hastings, Aayakar Bhavan, Kolkata-700022 Poorva, E.M. Bye Pass, [Pan No.Ajwps 8335 H] Nr. Ruby Hospital, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.930/Acit,Cc-3(3)/Cit(A)-21/Kol/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 153A R.W.S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Raises Two Substantive Grounds In Her Instant Appeal. Her Former Legal Grievance Challenges Validity Of Sec. 153A Proceedings In Absence Of Any Incriminating Material Found Or Seized During The Course Of Search. This Follows Her Latter Substantive Ground On Merits That The Assessing Officer & The Cit(A) Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating Long

163/- be treated as the one filed in furtherance to sec 153A proceeding. She further objected to the impugned proceeding for lack of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search conducted in her case. The Assessing Officer rejected the same quoting hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia

PRICE WATERHOUSE COPPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

property of the hirer or confer on the hirer an option to purchase the equipment , the transactions should be regarded as one of hire purchase. In such case the periodical payments made by the hirer should for tax purposes be regarded as made up of :- a) Consideration for hire, to be allowed as a deduction in the assessment (i.e interest