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 - 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

71,16,000/- apportioned by him allegedly for earning of house property income and disallowing the same against the total claim of business expenses by the appellant and his such conclusions are based on his surmises and guesses and are contrary to the facts and materials on record. (2) Because that the ld. CIT(A) was erred

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

71 of the Act correctly on the facts of the instant case. 9. Further we notice that the ld. Assessing Officer has also not applied the provisions of sections 23& 24 of the Act correctly. Provisions of sections 23 & 24 read as under:- 6 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Padmalochanan Radhakrishnan “23. (1)……………………….. (2) Where the property consists of a house

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

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

71,982/-\n(Cost of settlement of disputes incurred before sale of lands)\nNET SALE PROCEEDS\nRs.3,58,26,018/-\nLess: Exemption u/s 54F (Cost of\nnew house property)**\nRs.3,13,62,500/-\nLONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN\nRs. 44,63,518/-\n** Details of cost of new house property are given\nCost of new house property\nCost of stamp duty

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]

Housing & Properties Ltd. for transferring its own land to the said company for development by the said company into a residential complex. It was specifically mentioned in the relevant agreement that the assessee would be paid the sale price of the land by way of the sale proceeds of the flats that the said company would receive in relation

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]

Housing & Properties Ltd. for transferring its own land to the said company for development by the said company into a residential complex. It was specifically mentioned in the relevant agreement that the assessee would be paid the sale price of the land by way of the sale proceeds of the flats that the said company would receive in relation

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]

Housing & Properties Ltd. for transferring its own land to the said company for development by the said company into a residential complex. It was specifically mentioned in the relevant agreement that the assessee would be paid the sale price of the land by way of the sale proceeds of the flats that the said company would receive in relation

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]

Housing & Properties Ltd. for transferring its own land to the said company for development by the said company into a residential complex. It was specifically mentioned in the relevant agreement that the assessee would be paid the sale price of the land by way of the sale proceeds of the flats that the said company would receive in relation

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]

Housing & Properties Ltd. for transferring its own land to the said company for development by the said company into a residential complex. It was specifically mentioned in the relevant agreement that the assessee would be paid the sale price of the land by way of the sale proceeds of the flats that the said company would receive in relation

THE W.B STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-54,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80P(2)(a)(i) for the interest income of Rs.55,08,000/- and interest on FIB loan to employees of Rs.28,71,843/- received by the assessee is rejected. Since the matter has already been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, and when the matter was restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer and given finding on the same

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

property or assets of the demerged company or any undertaking thereof by the resulting company; vi) The transfer of the undertaking is on a going concern basis. 29. Once demerger is sanctioned by the Hon’ble High court the enabling provision is section 72A of the Act, which allows carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation

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]

71,00,000/- On 03.08.07 Rs. 23,00,000/- On 06.08.07 Rs. 37,00,000/- On 14.09.07 Rs. 46,00,000/- Rs.1,77,00,000/-” According to AO, Shri M. D. Jindal is holding 38,500 shares out of total issued shares of 60,000 i.e. 65.16% of MTPL as on 31.03.2007 and he is also holding shares of assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

house property' is a loss, in respect of the assessment years commencing on 1st day of April, 1995 and the 1st day of April, 1996, such loss shall be first set off under sub- sections (1) and (2) and thereafter the loss referred to in section 71A shall be set off in the relevant assessment year in accordance with

BOMBAY PLAZA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

section 27(iiib) of the Act does not arise at all. 6. Without prejudice to our above claim that the assessee is not assessable to 'Income from house property' as it is neither an owner nor a deemed owner, the Assessee further submitted that the Assessee was formed with the main objectives of carrying on the business of an investment

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

71 of assessment order), actually existed, on which I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/201 I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar according to AO, these two legal propositions i.e. Section 28(iia) and Section 45 could be ccording to AO, these two legal propositions i.e. Section 28(iia) and Section 45 could be ccording

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

71,141.00 23,26,196.00 Add:Disallowable Expenditure under section 36 of the Income Tax Act 1961 P.F 30,546.00 Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts 38,077.00 Provision for Leave Salary 5,00,000.00 Donation 20,000.00 Gift 18,600,.00 6,07,223.00 Add: Disallowable Expenditure under Section 37 Software purchase being capital 25,000.00 expenditure debited in profit

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

71,141.00 23,26,196.00 Add:Disallowable Expenditure under section 36 of the Income Tax Act 1961 P.F 30,546.00 Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts 38,077.00 Provision for Leave Salary 5,00,000.00 Donation 20,000.00 Gift 18,600,.00 6,07,223.00 Add: Disallowable Expenditure under Section 37 Software purchase being capital 25,000.00 expenditure debited in profit