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

iii) will work out to Rs. 2,96,947/- and the same is hereby confirmed. 13. For Assessment Year 2016-17, we notice that the ld. Assessing Officer has calculated the sum @ 0.5% of the average investment at Rs.10.23 Crores, whereas the actual average value of investment is Rs. 4,41,09,065/- and, therefore, the correct amount of disallowance

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

iii) will work out to Rs. 2,96,947/- and the same is hereby confirmed. 13. For Assessment Year 2016-17, we notice that the ld. Assessing Officer has calculated the sum @ 0.5% of the average investment at Rs.10.23 Crores, whereas the actual average value of investment is Rs. 4,41,09,065/- and, therefore, the correct amount of disallowance

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

iii) will work out to Rs. 2,96,947/- and the same is hereby confirmed. 13. For Assessment Year 2016-17, we notice that the ld. Assessing Officer has calculated the sum @ 0.5% of the average investment at Rs.10.23 Crores, whereas the actual average value of investment is Rs. 4,41,09,065/- and, therefore, the correct amount of disallowance

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,14,87,000/-. The AO is directed accordingly. These grounds of appeal of the\nappellant are treated as allowed.\"\nThe Tribunal reversed said conclusion of the CIT (Appeals) and the operative portion\nreads thus:\n\"7.4 Now the assessee claims deduction u/s. 54F in respect of investment in construction\nof residential house made by the assessee before the date

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

iii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating the facts that section 2(22)(e) of the Act, does not state to take higher peak balance of loan amount as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company. (iv) That on the facts & circumstances

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

14. We also note that the jurisdiction has been invoked by the ld. PCIT for two issues, namely that i)the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act were applicable to the acquisition of leasehold/freehold land and building from ‘BDMC’ on leasehold/freehold basis at Ranjangaon pursuant to an Agreement to Sell dated 28 Britannia Industries Limited 31.12.2016, whereas

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

14. Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted this addition by recording the following finding:- DECISION: This ground relates to the addition of Rs. 6784258/- made by the AO to total income of the assessee on account of amount received from M/s. Reliance Industries

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

14. Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted this addition by recording the following finding:- DECISION: This ground relates to the addition of Rs. 6784258/- made by the AO to total income of the assessee on account of amount received from M/s. Reliance Industries

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

14. Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted this addition by recording the following finding:- DECISION: This ground relates to the addition of Rs. 6784258/- made by the AO to total income of the assessee on account of amount received from M/s. Reliance Industries

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

14, ld. Assessing Officer has made the computation of taxable income. He determined income from house property as per the return at Rs.7,32,44,667/-. The business income declared by the assessee was at a loss of Rs.39,31,532/-. This has been reduced by the ld. Assessing Officer to Rs.16,59,079/-. In other words, the ld. Assessing

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

14. Thereafter, Hon'ble Court after taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT reported in 2010-TIOL-827-HC-Kerala-IT has held as under: “2. We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Rahul Tangri, learned counsel

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

14. Thereafter, Hon'ble Court after taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT reported in 2010-TIOL-827-HC-Kerala-IT has held as under: “2. We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Rahul Tangri, learned counsel

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

14. Thereafter, Hon'ble Court after taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT reported in 2010-TIOL-827-HC-Kerala-IT has held as under: “2. We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Rahul Tangri, learned counsel

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

14. Thereafter, Hon'ble Court after taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT reported in 2010-TIOL-827-HC-Kerala-IT has held as under: “2. We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Rahul Tangri, learned counsel

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself