ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORTUNE INTERFINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

1 of 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘C(SMC)’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 2064 /KOL/ 2014 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Income Tax Officer,..................................................................Appellant Ward-5(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8th Floor, Room No. 15, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 -Vs.- M/s. Fortune Interfinance Limited,......................................Respondent 19, British Indian

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

256 ITR 625, wherein it has been held that the date of registration is not decisive to ascertain the date of acquisition/ownership of the property. In defence of his argument, ld. A.R. stated that the ld. PCIT’s direction was unjustified and unlawful so far as the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act were

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

256,84,57,511/- which have not been disturbed by the A.O. and have been accepted. Thus whereas sales made by the appellant to Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd have been accepted by the A.O., purchases made by the appellant from Sancheti Diamonds Pvt Ltd have not been accepted. As a matter of fact the A.O. has not found any fault

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

256,84,57,511/- which have not been disturbed by the A.O. and have been accepted. Thus whereas sales made by the appellant to Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd have been accepted by the A.O., purchases made by the appellant from Sancheti Diamonds Pvt Ltd have not been accepted. As a matter of fact the A.O. has not found any fault

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

256,84,57,511/- which have not been disturbed by the A.O. and have been accepted. Thus whereas sales made by the appellant to Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd have been accepted by the A.O., purchases made by the appellant from Sancheti Diamonds Pvt Ltd have not been accepted. As a matter of fact the A.O. has not found any fault

SINGHI & CO.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Vs Singhi & Co., Acit, 1B, Old Post Office Street, Circle-54, 54/1, Rafi Kolkata-700001. Ahmed Kidwai Road, Pan-Aasfs9578D Kolkata-700016. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Respondent By Sh. Pradip Majumden, Addl. Cit. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

1 [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Vishva Bharati and the membership fee paid thereon should be allowed as deduction as it was incurred for the benefit of business of the assessee. The AO rejected the said submission and held the membership fee was incurred for the purpose other than business or profession of the assessee and disallowed the same by adding

MEDICARE TPA SERVICE (I) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOL - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

property; and whether the developers were or were not ready and willing to carry out their part of the bargain. Since we are of the view that sub-clause (v) of Section 2(47) of the Act is not attracted on the facts of this case, we need not go into any other factual question. 24. The matter can also

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the dedsion of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the dedsion of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the dedsion of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the dedsion of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the dedsion of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the dedsion of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the dedsion of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

SHRINGAR MARKETING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Properties Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No. 578/Kol/2019, order dt. 22/11/2019. 6. The ld. D/R, vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the The ld. D/R, vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the The ld. D/R, vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that th assessee and submitted

M/S DHARA DEALERS PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-13(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

property, the AO made independent enquiries by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act and thereafter accepted the replies after examining them. The Pr. CIT has not pointed out as to what is the error committed by the AO in accepting the replies from various parties. Without pointing out any defects, it cannot be said that there

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

House, New Delhi in the assessee’s own case wherein valuation of imports made by the assessee from its AEs was referred to Special Valuation Branch under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of imported goods) Rules, 2007. While dealing with the valuation issue in respect of import of goods done by the assessee the Customs Authority held that royalty

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

House, New Delhi in the assessee’s own case wherein valuation of imports made by the assessee from its AEs was referred to Special Valuation Branch under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of imported goods) Rules, 2007. While dealing with the valuation issue in respect of import of goods done by the assessee the Customs Authority held that royalty