SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

47)(v) of the Act, had been made over by the assessee to the developer. It is the undeniable position that under the agreement of February 7, 2007, the land and the construction thereon were to be divided in a certain ratio as between the developer and the assessee. It was also the developer’s obligation under the agreement

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

47)(v) of the Act, had been made over by the assessee to the developer. It is the undeniable position that under the agreement of February 7, 2007, the land and the construction thereon were to be divided in a certain ratio as between the developer and the assessee. It was also the developer’s obligation under the agreement

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

VI, which in turn arise out of assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). 2.Since these Five appeals relate to the same assessee, different assessment year, identical issues are involved,therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

VI, which in turn arise out of assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). 2.Since these Five appeals relate to the same assessee, different assessment year, identical issues are involved,therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

VI, which in turn arise out of assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). 2.Since these Five appeals relate to the same assessee, different assessment year, identical issues are involved,therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

VI, which in turn arise out of assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). 2.Since these Five appeals relate to the same assessee, different assessment year, identical issues are involved,therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

VI, which in turn arise out of assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). 2.Since these Five appeals relate to the same assessee, different assessment year, identical issues are involved,therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITMAN COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

47)(v) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [Para 7]. ■ After reading the Joint Development Agreement, the Supreme Court found that the owner continues to be the owner throughout the agreement at any state purported to transfer rights akin to ownership to the developer. This is exactly the nature of transaction 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

vi) Voltas Ltd. v. ITO (74 taxmann.com 99) (ITAT Mum) (vii) Shri Farid Gulmohammed vs. ITO (ITA No. 5136/Mum/2014) (ITAT Mum) (viii) ITO vs Yasin Moosa Godil (20 taxmann.com 424) (ITAT Ahmedabad) (ix) ACIT vs. Nadir Nazarali Dhanani (ITA No. 100/Mum/2013) (ITAT Mum); (x) Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No. 7231/Mum/2010) (ITAT Mum); (xi) ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

housing or real estate land and property authorities. authorities. 24 Capital Investment Leasehold properties Purchasing a freehold may require less initial property requires a capital investment larger upfront capital compared to investment. purchasing a freehold property. 25 Flexibility Leasehold properties Freehold properties offer less flexibility as provide more flexibility the lessee is bound by as the owner has the terms

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

M/S HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

VI, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 237/CIT(A)-VI/Cir-5/2011-12/Kol dated 03.12.2012. Assessment was framed by Addl. CIT, Range-5, Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2009-10 vide his order dated 28.12.2011. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

VI – A 2. Large refund claimed out of advance tax 3. High ratio of refund to TDS 4. Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c 5. Large any other deduction claimed in such BP creating a loss without any income in Profit & Loss a/c 6. Depreciation claimed at higher rates/Higher additional depreciation claimed 7. Large value sale

EMPORIS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Emporis Properties Pvt. Ltd..................................…..............................……Appellant 5Th Floor, 16A, Brabourne Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadce0793Q] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-2...................….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :September 08, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :September 22, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26.03.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

vi),"immovable property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of section 269UA;] [Explanation 2- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly