ITO, WD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BATRAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.983/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(1) -Vs.- M/S. Batram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccb 0291 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl.Cit For The Respondent : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

section 194A(3)(iii)(e) of the Act suggests that interest income paid to a company carrying on a business of insurance need not deduct tax at source. There is no other qualification mentioned in the relevant statutory provisions. Nevertheless it is not possible to conclude from a mere look at the profile of the company in a website that

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

property and its agricultural use need to be ascertained by the AO with reference to the documents and earlier year records. Accordingly the ld. CIT(A) disregarded the submission of the assessee by holding as under : “In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that owing to the omission on the part of the AO to conduct

TIRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,1,GIBSON LANE, SUITE 213, 2ND FLOOR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, GARIAHAT ROAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1965/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Vs Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata C/O: Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Apmps 8395 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Kumar Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21/08/2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, On The Following Grounds :- 1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,82,18,524/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Oil & Fuel Expenses. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 53,40,091/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Truck Running Expenses As Against 80,35,546/-Claimed By The Assessee. 3. (A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 3,71,736/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Finance Charges Paid For Acquisition Of Self Occupied House Property.

property. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.94,63,812/-towards finance charges which included interest of Rs. 3,71,736/- raised from HDFC for purchase of flat at Paransree Green. The said flat was registered in the name of assessee on 25.04.2014 for Rs.69,24,100/- against the collectorate value of Rs.83

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

Properties Pvt Ltd 10,675,616 21.06.2011 675,616 Chq Yes 10,675,616 1.R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor 31.03.2012 900,000 Chq 1,000,000 100,000 Kolkata-700 001 PA No. AACCA 2514J Harvard Trading Pvt Ltd 4,279,123 21.06.2011 279,123 Chq No 4,279,123 1,R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor

CITYSTAR GANGULY PROJECTS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 9, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Properties Investment (2014) reported in 51 taxmann 387 (SC) where it has been held that - ' PAN cannot be treated as sufficient disclosure of identity of the person. PANs are allowed on the basis of application without actual de facto clarification of identity or ascertainment of activities, nature of business activity and are just as to 2 I.T.A No.1103/Kol/2019

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

house for itself. Therefore, from the perspective of the recipient, if it were not something that he would have paid for, the activity should normally not be considered as an intra-group service under the arm's length principle. Given that Indian TP law differs from the OECD's approach in certain aspects with respect to the application

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

house for itself. Therefore, from the perspective of the recipient, if it were not something that he would have paid for, the activity should normally not be considered as an intra-group service under the arm's length principle. Given that Indian TP law differs from the OECD's approach in certain aspects with respect to the application

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

house for itself. Therefore, from the perspective of the recipient, if it were not something that he would have paid for, the activity should normally not be considered as an intra-group service under the arm's length principle. Given that Indian TP law differs from the OECD's approach in certain aspects with respect to the application