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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD ,IDEAL CENTRE vs. CIRCLE-7(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

2 income at Rs. 1,78,76,308/-. The assessee challenged the said additions/disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the following additions/disallowance confirmed by the ld. CIT(A):- (a) Foreign exchange losses – Rs.7,74,799/- (b) Disallowance

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

2,81,04,250 Deduct: cost of construction paid to Developer for area set apart for Original Lessor (44,26,906) & indexed cost of land 60,22,089 not considered (15,95,183) Long term Capital gain on transfer of land proportionate to Developer’s allocation 4,65,63,334 5,42,02,854 3.3. As regards computation of capital

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

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

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