DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018] in which the\nfacts were that the assessee was engaged, in the business of finance,\ninvestment and dealing in shares and securities. It held\nshares/securities in two portfolios: (a) as investment on capital account;\nPage 36\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018] in which the facts were that the assessee was engaged, in the business of finance, investment and dealing in shares and securities. It held shares/securities in two portfolios: (a) as investment on capital account; and, (b) as trading assets for the purpose

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018] in which the\nfacts were that the assessee was engaged, in the business of finance,\ninvestment and dealing in shares and securities. It held\nshares/securities in two portfolios: (a) as investment on capital account;\nPage 37\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018] in which the\nfacts were that the assessee was engaged, in the business of finance,\ninvestment and dealing in shares and securities. It held\nshares/securities in two portfolios: (a) as investment on capital account;\nand, (b) as trading assets for the purpose

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018] in which the\nfacts were that the assessee was engaged, in the business of finance,\ninvestment and dealing in shares and securities. It held\nshares/securities in two portfolios: (a) as investment on capital account;\nand, (b) as trading assets for the purpose

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018] in which the\nfacts were that the assessee was engaged, in the business of finance,\ninvestment and dealing in shares and securities. It held\nshares/securities in two portfolios: (a) as investment on capital account;\nPage | 37\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406

M/S. SHIMMER TEXTILES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-12(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

house property and income of Rs. 31,11,681/- declared in the return for AY 2011- 12 furnished on 22.09.211. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2014 assessing income at Rs. 57,25,440/-. Thereafter the additions made in the assessment order were challenged by the assessee to the higher appellate forum and vide order dated

RAM NIRANJAN BANKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

section 54(1)(ii) of the Act. The provision talks about ‘new asset’. In the present case, the flat in question is the ‘new asset’. Hence has to be treated as whole and cannot be broken up into components as contended by the assessee. Ram Niranjan Banka; A.Y. 2014-15 3.5. The Ld. AO erred in considering 1st Floor Flat

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

254 rws 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated27.09.2021.Accordingly, grounds of appellant raised on the issue in contention are dismissed.” 5. On going through the above finding of the ld. CIT(A), it emerges that though the assessee had filed various details and supporting documents to explain the nature and source of the alleged sum but they fall short

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

254 rws 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated27.09.2021.Accordingly, grounds of appellant raised on the issue in contention are dismissed.” 5. On going through the above finding of the ld. CIT(A), it emerges that though the assessee had filed various details and supporting documents to explain the nature and source of the alleged sum but they fall short

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

254 (MAD) Penalty- concealment of income-revised return filed after search proceedings - Finding by Tribunal that there had concealment of income-levy of penalty valid- Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 27(1)(c). Held that the Tribunal on the facts of the case, found that the omission or wrong statement by the assessee in the original return was not bona

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

property, goods or service has been acquired under similar market conditions. It is also settled that choice of tested party is of lesser significance for the purpose of application of CUP method but instead key factor in application of CUP is product comparability and similar market conditions. Further the CUP method can be classified into two categories i.e. internal

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

property belongs to\nthe Lessor and not to the assessee. The assessee can not claim depreciation\nalso. Considering the factual position, we are of the view that order passed\nby the Id CIT (A) does not contain any infirmity. Therefore, we confirm the\norder of ld. CIT(A). and Ground No. 2 of the appeal is\ndismissed.\n8. Ground

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

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