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

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

property for enabling company\nto secure bank loan. Here, it is clear that both the parties are benefited\nfrom the transaction. And if the transaction is mutual by which both\nparties are benefited, then Sec. 2(22)(e) will not attract. Therefore, the\ndecision was given in favour of the assessee. But coming to the present\ncase only the appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 427/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6(2), Kolkata Vs 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber Vs Tax, Circle-6(2), Kolkata 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/06/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross-Objection Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 965 Days In Filing The Cross-Objection By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A 2

22)(e) of the Act and applicability of provisions of Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. After considering various details filed by the assessee, the ld. AO made various additions assessing income at Rs.8,30,35,930/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 3 I.T.A. No. 427/Kol/2019 Assessment Year

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

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S MACHINO TECHNO (SALES) PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

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

property as mortgage on behalf of the company to reap the benefit of loan as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 14. We, consequently, set aside the order of the Tribunal below by directing the Assessing Officer not to treat the advance of Rs. 20,75,000 as a deemed dividend

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, A.M.: These two appeals, one filed by the Revenue being ITA No. 297/KOL/2013 and the other filed by the assessee being ITA No. I.T.A. No 297/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 & I.T.A. No. 161/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 23 161/KOL/2013, are cross appeals, which are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner

MR. MANISH MIMANI,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T.(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-V, KOLAKTA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

house property and other sources. On 30.1.2009 he filed his return of income. On 4.10.2007, there was a search and seizure operation in Mimani Group. During the course of search operation no incriminating materials were found relevant to assessment year under appeal. Learned AO however initiated proceedings u/.s 153A of the assessee and the assessee in response to the said

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

SRI MONAJ PATI,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-38, PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T Varkey & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Sri Manoj Pati Acit, Circle-38, Pan: Aespp2111H Midnapore, Nazarganj, V/S. C/O M/S. Salarpuria Paschim Midnapore- Jajodia & Co., 721101 7 Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700 072. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

2(22)( e) of the Act. Hence, we are of the view that the AO and CIT(A) clearly erred in holding that the moneys paid by the Company to Godrej was for the benefit of the assessee and hence, to be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. 8. We have also gone through the case

PURNENDU ROY,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

property for the benefit of the company. Provision of section 2(22)(e) is not be applicable on such receipts and as such no addition was called for. 3) For that the lower authorities have failed to consider the facts and documents submitted in support of our above contention while sustaining the additions made. 4) For that the appellant craves

DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MS. MINU BUDHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1450/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -Vs- Ms. Minu Budhia [Pan: Aefpb 5941 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, capital gains and other sources. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12.04.2010 accepting the returned income. Later assessment was set aside to the file of ld. AO vide order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the CIT on 21.01.2013 for making a fresh assessment as per provisions of section 2(22)(e

BENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Bengalshrachi Acit, Cir-5(1), Kolkata Housingdevelopment Aaykar Bhawan V/S. Ltd. P-7 Chowringhee Square, 686 Shrachi Tower, Kolkata-700 069. Anandapur,E.M Bypass, Kolkata-700 107. Pan: Aabcb2808F अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

section 2(22)(e) of the Act applies in the case where lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the company. Before us no document what so ever has been filed in relation to M/s. RDPL, which could indicate that lending of money is a substantial part of business of M/s. RDPL. 12. Further, we notice

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

22 & 23 and assessed it under Chapter IV-C of the Act i.e. ‘Income from House Property’. 33. We note that the Revenue’s case solely rests on the decision Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Co Ltd (supra) which has taken a view that ALV of unsold flats held

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

House property in Singapore is not taxable in India under DTAA while as per Article 25 of DTAA, it is taxable in India. 3 M/s UCO Bank 10. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 relates to addition

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Properties Pvt. Ltd. Thus analyzing the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the CIT(A) stated that in respect to these two companies i.e. Oberoi Holding Pvt. Ltd. and Oberoi Building & Investment Pvt. Ltd. provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be attracted. Accordingly, he deleted the addition. Hence, there is no dispute

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Properties Pvt. Ltd. Thus analyzing the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the CIT(A) stated that in respect to these two companies i.e. Oberoi Holding Pvt. Ltd. and Oberoi Building & Investment Pvt. Ltd. provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be attracted. Accordingly, he deleted the addition. Hence, there is no dispute