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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Since the facts and issued involved in both the appeals are identical and both the appeals are arising out of the same I.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 & I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 M/s Merino Industries Ltd order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, these have been heard together

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter\nreferred to as the 'Act'). Since the facts and issued involved in both the\nappeals are identical and both the appeals are arising out of the same\norder of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, these have been heard together and are\nbeing disposed of by this common order.\n2. The assessee

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice. 2. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in denying the deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that the appellant did not deposit the sale proceeds of his old property

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 10.06.2023. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 109 days

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 10.06.2023. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 109 days

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 10.06.2023. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 109 days

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 10.06.2023. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 109 days

SUGAM REALTY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [in I.T.A. No.: 381/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sugam Realty Limited. short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 01.03.2023 arising out of the Assessment Order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2013-14, dated 01.11.2023, which is against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 30.03.2016. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That on the facts

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 05.03.2024. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 24 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appellate order was noticed by the concerned person late and since

HARIT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the AY 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- AY 2014-15 Harit Properties P.Ltd. Page 2 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-23(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDIP ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

house property was inherited by the assessee from her father was sold in asst. yr. 1993-94. The father of the assessee acquired the property in 1972 and therefore, the assessee opted for FMV of 1st April, 1981 to be the cost of acquisition. The assessee computed the indexed cost of acquisition with reference to the cost of inflation index

ALOK GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD.28(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

250 of the Act is unlawful, unwarranted and against natural justice. 2. That your appellant submits that correct computation of Long Term Capital Gain be directed to be computed by considering the Indexed Cost of both the properties sold as per the provisions of section 48(2) of the Act and so also proper deduction

M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee is a company and is in the business of infrastructure development and construction of commercial, residential and township projects. It filed its return of income electronically on 12/10/2010, declaring Nil income. The profit earned by the company of Rs.4

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2022-23 dated 27.05.2024, which has been passed against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 15.06.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.: 1572/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chandra Bros

SMT. PRIYANKA GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(IT)-CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from 2 I.T.A. No.2619/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Smt. Priyanka Ganguly the order of the ld. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata (in brevity the ‘AO’) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 02.12.2018. 2. The assessee has taken