M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

property right, exterior design or practical and new design or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature; (c) capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other 99debt arising during the course

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Properties (supra). As per the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, 23 I.T.A No.1514/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 1515/Kol/2015 A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. construction of even one building with several residential units of the prescribed size would constitute a 'housing project' for the purposes of s. 80-IB(10) of the Act. 30. From the aforesaid

ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHREE KRISHNA DEVELOPERS, KOLKATA

255 (Pune, SB), the Special Bench answered the question as to whether in any other case where 90% or more of total built up area is used for dwelling units, in accordance with scheme of section 80IB(10) of the Act, benefit of [Assessment Year: 2008-09] deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act would not be declined was answered

I.T.O WD - 36(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE KRISHNA DEVELOPERS, KOLKATA

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S. Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Vs Ito, M/S. Shree Krishna Developers, Ward-36(2), 78, Bentinck Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaaas9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Vs Ito, Shree Krishna Developers, Ward-36(2), 133, Canning Street, Kolkata. ‘Chopra House’, Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaaas9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Dr Respondent By Sh.D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing 18.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2018 Order

property to these persons. From the following Table, it can be seen that the area of the shops and other commercial establishments included in the housing project was 2080 sq.ft. plus 783 sq ft. and 384 sq. ft. i.e. 3247 sq.” [ii] Built up area of some of the residential flats was above 1500 sq. Ft. In order to verify

BARDHAMAN DISHARI SHRAMIK O JANAALYAN SAMABAY SAMITY LIMITED,BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

255/- u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In absence of evidence, donation of Rs. 5,000/- was added back. Excess claim of depreciation of Rs. 2,54,175/- was also disallowed. The AO further noticed that Rs. 9,00,000/- was given as a grant to Cyber Research & Training Institute and the same was not related to the business activity

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

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68. If the Assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source, of the investments made, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. Thereafter

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68. If the Assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source, of the investments made, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. Thereafter

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68. If the Assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source, of the investments made, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. Thereafter

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68. If the Assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source, of the investments made, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. Thereafter

A.C.I.T CIR - 1,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. M/S JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

4. That my original return filed on 2810312006 which was revised by computation Rs.575,000/- may kindly be treated as return filed disclosing income Ra. 575,0001- in compliance to your notice U/s. 148 of the Act. However, your honour is requested to give the reasons recorded which prompted you for issuing the notice u/s 148 at your earliest." From

M/S. SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd granted permission vide letter dated 24.10.2008 for carrying out construction of the 5 Star Hotel Complex at the land situated at Plot No. AA-IVCBDIZ, AA-II, New Town, Kolkata on the basis of the drawings mentioned in the said letter. Copy of the said letter is enclosed at pages 163- 165 of the paper

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

section 263 of the Act. The assesese placed reliance on plethora of judgments and the same are referred below:- S.No. Title CITATION AUTHORITY Following Page No. of LPP Argument:- Mandatory to issue notice u/s 143(2) CBDT Circular No.549 dated -- 1 31.10.1989 PCIT vs. Oberoi (2018) 409 ITR 132 The Hon’ble High Court of 2 – 6 Hotels

RAHUL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-46, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

255/- and paid income tax of Rs. 14,50,450/- and has disbursed advance against property of Rs. 10,49,79,327/- (refer page- 31 of P.B). The Ld. AR also drew our attention to page-52, which is a copy of loan confirmation of accounts given/issued by M/s. GRREPL in respect of said loan which has been given

GOLDEN SAND TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

4) above. 6. Statement if any, recorded by the Income tax authorities from the Chairman, Axis Bank in connection with the complaint filed by the Society for Welfare of the Handicapped Persons. 7. Opportunity of cross examining the person mentioned in Sl. No. (6) above. 8. Statement if any, recorded by the Income tax authorities from the Branch Manager, Axis

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

255)(SC)] 8 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited He submitted that when two view are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, would not be attracted and for this proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case