APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

houses within country and abroad. The ICC was set up with the sole purpose of promotion and protection of Indian business and industry and was duly registered u/s 12A of the Act as a charitable association with the main objects as set out in Clause 3 of MAA of the assessee company as “to promote and protect the trade, commerce

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

houses within country and abroad. The ICC was set up with the sole purpose of promotion and protection of Indian business and industry and was duly registered u/s 12A of the Act as a charitable association with the main objects as set out in Clause 3 of MAA of the assessee company as “to promote and protect the trade, commerce

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

property should be\ndeposited before the furnishing of return under section 139 of the Act. The\nHigh Court held that section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be\nmeant only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961.\nThere was no necessity to comply with the conditions

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

house property" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely:— (a) a sum equal to thirty per cent of the annual value; (b) where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital: Provided that in respect of property referred to in sub-section (2

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and provisions of Section\n54F were/are applicable to all other assets, not being a residential house. In J.R.\nSubramanya Bhat (supra), Karnataka High Court noticed language of Section 54 which\nstipulated that the assessee should within one year from the date of transfer purchase, or\nwithin a period of two years thereafter, construct a residential house to avail

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Housing Development Corporation Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 316, the assessment is liable to be annulled. 6. In these circumstances, as notice u/s.143(2) has not been issued in respect of the valid revised return filed by the assessee u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014, the consequential Assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2014 for the AY 2012-13, in the case

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

properties at a values which were lower than the stamp duty value, the ld. Assessing Officer did not dispute the same after exercising his discretion under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The ld. A.R. also drew our attention to the fact that Notes to Clause 29B of the Tax Audit Report, copy of which is placed at pages

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Housing Development Corporation Ltd. reported\nin 343 ITR 316, the assessment is liable to be annulled.\n6. In these circumstances, as notice_u/s.143(2) has not been\nissued in respect of the valid revised return filed by the\nassessee_u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014, the consequential Assessment\nOrder_u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2014 for the AY 2012-13, in the case

E M C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

house property income or business income? 3. Brief facts of the case are that the asseessee has filed its return of income on 15.12.2014 for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.6,93,13,140/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SATURDAY CLUB LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares