JCIT, (OSD), CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ONPROCESS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

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

house developed process automation solutions and skilled manpower i.e. software developers for servicing the process solutions, which are evidently in the nature of “Technical Services” over which all IPRs are enjoyed by the holding coy i.e. BNKe Inc., USA” 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that the material issue for decision was not whether the assessee was rendering BPO services

ITO, WD-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ARCUTTIPORE TEA CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

property. The AO added the amount of Rs. 10,29,905/- and Rs. 9,16,568/- towards employees’ and employer’s contribution to PF for nonpayment of the same within stipulated time prescribed under section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Before the AO the assessee stated that the manager and superintendent of the assessee company

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in View of the decision of 7 ITA No.100/Kol/2011& C.O.No.13/Kol/2011 532&217,533&218/Kol/2012 M/s. Mcnally Bharat Engg.Co.Ltd A.Yr.2006-07 the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported

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

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 - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

house projects, barrack projects, health centre project and other. Since, the projects awarded to the assessee were government project, the assessee after looking into the size and nature of business of the company gave labour contract for Hard Rock Chiselling using rock hammers and chisels, stacking on road side for pipe line trenches, carting excess earth and other similar labour

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

house projects, barrack projects, health centre project and other. Since, the projects awarded to the assessee were government project, the assessee after looking into the size and nature of business of the company gave labour contract for Hard Rock Chiselling using rock hammers and chisels, stacking on road side for pipe line trenches, carting excess earth and other similar labour

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

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

36(6)(va) of the I.T. Act. But this provision has to be read along with the provisions Sec.2(24)(x) and Sec.43B of the I.T. Act. After examining these provisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court have held that if the contribution is deposited by the appellant before the due date of submission of its Return

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

property or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money or any such transaction. This understanding of ours gets further clarified by, way of insertion of Explanation in section 92B(1) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 vide clause (a) to (d). We find that in the said explanation, clause (e) alone has been carved

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

property or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money or any such transaction. This understanding of ours gets further clarified by, way of insertion of Explanation in section 92B(1) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 vide clause (a) to (d). We find that in the said explanation, clause (e) alone has been carved

ACIT, CIRCLE -15(1),KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. BALJIT SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

house property”, “Capital Gains” and “Income from other sources”, or where the principal business of the company is the business of banking or of granting loans and advances. Hence from this, the following points emerge:- • It applies to companies whose business consists of purchase and sale of shares of other companies. 10 | P a g e Baljit Securities

BENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Bengalshrachi Acit, Cir-5(1), Kolkata Housingdevelopment Aaykar Bhawan V/S. Ltd. P-7 Chowringhee Square, 686 Shrachi Tower, Kolkata-700 069. Anandapur,E.M Bypass, Kolkata-700 107. Pan: Aabcb2808F अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 1,34,735/-. Subsequently, the assessment records were called for by the ld.PCIT and after examining of the same the ld. PCIT observed that assessee has received loan sum of 2. AY 2017-18 Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Ltd. Rs. 4,66,69,103/- from M/s. Rosedala Developers P.Ltd (In short

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE -4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GILLANDER ARBITHNOT & CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

va).” 5. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee claimed deduction of PF and ESI payments amounting to Rs.7,77,244/- being employees’ contribution u/s 43B of the Act but the AO disallowed by noting that these payments are not made within

JAGANNATH GUPTA FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini

36. The aforesaid provision thus, clarifies that all that income, which is derived from the property held under the trust wholly for charitable purposes or religious purposes, shall stand exempted to the extent to which such Income is applied to such purposes in India but if the Income is accumulated or set apart for application to such purposes in India

GANPATI INDUSTRIEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

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

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

House, 2, Hare Street Vs Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata Dalhousie, 3rd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AAACG9441Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Kumar Patodia, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/06/2024 आदेश

NORMURA RESEARCH INSTITURE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

36. Before us, on the issue of working capital adjustment, the AR submitted that the ITAT in its order had observed, "The assessee has also requested for working capital adjustment. The case of the assessee is that working capital does have an impact on the profitability of the company and more accounts receivable in case of a company would mean