NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

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]

section 80-IB(10)(a) of the Act is "shall", but it would not necessarily mean that in every case, it shall be taken to be mandatory requirement instead would depend upon the intent of the Legislature and not the language in which the provision is clothed. The meaning and the intent of the Legislature would be gathered

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

Housing Project Pvt. Ltd. The said investment in Right to Property was a capital asset and was shown in the Audited Accounts as Investment in Right to Property' under the head 'Investments - Current and Non-current investments', refer Note II of the audited accounts. The investment in Right to Property was never considered as 'stock in trade' by the assessee

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

property which in the opinion of the Engineer-In -Charge are due to the negligence of the contractor, are promptly rectified by the contractor at: their own cost and expenses and! According to the direction and satisfaction of the Engineer-In ·-Charge. viii. As per the contract the assessee is not supposed to sublet / assign any portion of the work

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

property or services transferred in a comparable uncontrolled transaction in comparable circumstances. " 11.1 We also find support from the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of DCIT vs. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals (P.) Ltd reported in [2013] 31 taxmann.com 388 (Mumbai - Trib.), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal interalia held that : "various benches of the Tribunal including Asstt

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]

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 4. Disallowance of capital work in progress 20,201,473 NIL written off relating to abandoned project 6. We first take

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]

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 4. Disallowance of capital work in progress 20,201,473 NIL written off relating to abandoned project 6. We first take

NLC NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

property 4. Particulars in respect of providing services 15,174,980.00 TNMM 5. Interest on loan received 1,603,119.00 Comparable Uncontrolled price (‘CUP’) Method 6. Reimbursement of expenses 6,893,894.00 TNMM The TPO observed in his order that in response to the notice u/s 92CA (2) of the Act, the assessee attended his office and filed details which

N L C NALCO INDIA LTD PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

property 4. Particulars in respect of providing services 15,174,980.00 TNMM 5. Interest on loan received 1,603,119.00 Comparable Uncontrolled price (‘CUP’) Method 6. Reimbursement of expenses 6,893,894.00 TNMM The TPO observed in his order that in response to the notice u/s 92CA (2) of the Act, the assessee attended his office and filed details which

M/S. MANGILALL ESTATES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

section 50C in statute. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the plea of the appellant that even if sec 50C is made applicable, stamp duty val9uation as on the date of agreement should be adopted and not of the date of registration. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, to delete from or substantiate

M/S LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

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

199 ITR 94 (Cal) and CIT Vs. Karanpura Collieries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 498 (Cal), wherein Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that just to maintain company some expenses are bound to be incurred by the assessee. We are in agreement with the findings of CIT(A) that expenditure claimed qua rental income should not have been allowed and rightly

LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

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

199 ITR 94 (Cal) and CIT Vs. Karanpura Collieries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 498 (Cal), wherein Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that just to maintain company some expenses are bound to be incurred by the assessee. We are in agreement with the findings of CIT(A) that expenditure claimed qua rental income should not have been allowed and rightly

M/S LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

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

199 ITR 94 (Cal) and CIT Vs. Karanpura Collieries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 498 (Cal), wherein Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that just to maintain company some expenses are bound to be incurred by the assessee. We are in agreement with the findings of CIT(A) that expenditure claimed qua rental income should not have been allowed and rightly

LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

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

199 ITR 94 (Cal) and CIT Vs. Karanpura Collieries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 498 (Cal), wherein Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that just to maintain company some expenses are bound to be incurred by the assessee. We are in agreement with the findings of CIT(A) that expenditure claimed qua rental income should not have been allowed and rightly