ACIT, CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. RESHMI P LOYALKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the Cross Objection of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

property, deed of plots of land, occupation certificate of constructed residential houses and copy of receipt of cess issued by District Town Planner, Cum- Member Secretary, Composition Committee, Gurgaon. The assessee also produced copy of bills raised by the supplier of building construction material, copy of bills raised by interior decorator, copy of acknowledgement of cheque/ draft receipt

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

House Property. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred by not appreciating the facts that the assessee Page 3 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 977/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 AMRI Hospitals Ltd. company was required to provide additional services and facilities other than just its property given on rent

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR- 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

211 of Companies Act, 1956, Insertion of Explanation 3 to section 115JB of the IT Act, 1961, with effect from 1.4.2013 , relevant provisions of section 2(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, definition of ‘company’ under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, definition of ‘company’ under Companies Act, 1956, Notes to Clauses to Finance Act, 2012 on the subject of Minimum Alternate

ITO, WARD-31(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. NAMITA CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

211 (Kar) and the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. V.R.Karpagam 373 ITR 121 (Mds). In the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the assessee held a property which she gave it to a builder. The assessee got four flats representing 48% of the built up area

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 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

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 30(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section as well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide otherwise. Hence we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs.” 13. It can be seen from the above decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that Amendment to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STABLE TRADING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Itat House Property Rs.4,53,600/- Loss From Business Rs.(-) 20,58,153 Add: 14A Disallowance Rs.36,41`,968/- Rs.15,83,815/- Short Term Capital Gain 9,37,49,029/- Total Income Rs.9,57,86,444/- Tax On Above On Rs. 20,37,415/- @33.99% Rs.6,92,517/- On Rs.9,37,49,029/- Rs.1,59,32,647/- Total Tax Rs.1,66,25,164/- Income As Computed After Cit(A) Effect Of Section 14A. House Property Rs.4,53,600/- Loss From Business (-)Rs.20,58,153/- Short Term Capital Gain Rs.9,37,49,029/- Total Income 9,21,44,476/- 1

section 14A. House property Rs.4,53,600/- Loss from business (-)Rs.20,58,153/- Short term capital gain Rs.9,37,49,029/- Total Income 9,21,44,476/- 1 ITA No. 2122/Kol/2016-T.E Tax on above On Rs.9,21,44,476/- @16.995% Rs.1,56,59,953/- Difference in Tax = Rs. 9,65,211

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

house on 03.10.2016 whereas the assessee sold the property on 09.12.2013. According to Ld. 6 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 AO, it meant that valuation was done after a lapse of three years from the transfer of property. Therefore, according to the Ld. CIT(A), the estimation of the cost of the property is not correct

ESJAY COMMERCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

house property as reported in the return. However, while computing the income from business and profession instead of reducing the rental income of Rs.72,30,427/-, CPC, Bengaluru reduced the amount of Rs.62,14,211/- from the net profit which has resulted in the increase in income from the business and profession by Rs.10,16,216/-. Aggrieved, assessee went

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

House property. However, as the same have been claimed as a deduction under the head of business income and receipts disclosed under that head, I see no good reason for the impugned disallowance. The action of the Ld. AO in the matter is therefore held to be unsustainable in the facts of the case, and is directed to be deleted

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

211 (SC); and iii) It is well settled that what is taxable under the income-tax law is only real income vide CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) and CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 349: (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC). There is, therefore, no principle by which the stock-in-trade

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

House Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AACCV 1846 Q] Appearances by: Shri Dev Kumar Kothari, FCA, appearing on behalf of the assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Additional CIT, DR., appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 06, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : , 2017 2 I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

House Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AACCV 1846 Q] Appearances by: Shri Dev Kumar Kothari, FCA, appearing on behalf of the assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Additional CIT, DR., appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 06, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : , 2017 2 I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

House Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AACCV 1846 Q] Appearances by: Shri Dev Kumar Kothari, FCA, appearing on behalf of the assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Additional CIT, DR., appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 06, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : , 2017 2 I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

property was handed over to the assessee on which the mills were run. The seller went into liquidation and subsequently the amounts were written off as bad debts by the assessee on account of incapacity of the seller to pay the same. The court held that by making a deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- the assessee had acquired licence