D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

37. On a more fundamental note, however, it is also a settled legal position by now that the services of the nature rendered by these commission agents cannot anyway be treated as fees for technical services anyway. Viewed thus, even the discussion on whether the amounts in question could be treated as ‘consideration’ for technical services, may be rendered academic

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

37. On a more fundamental note, however, it is also a settled legal position by now that the services of the nature rendered by these commission agents cannot anyway be treated as fees for technical services anyway. Viewed thus, even the discussion on whether the amounts in question could be treated as 'consideration' for technical services, may be rendered academic

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

37. On a more fundamental note, however, it is also a settled legal position by now that the services of the nature rendered by these commission agents cannot anyway be treated as fees for technical services anyway. Viewed thus, even the discussion on whether the amounts in question could be treated as 'consideration' for technical services, may be rendered academic

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

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

37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 37(1) of the Act. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred by stating that the rent received from IBS Tower is income from House Property

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

37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent

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

37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent

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

37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. [Explanation 1.]—For the purposes of this section, “Valuation Officer” shall have the same meaning

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

37,84,046/- and the taxable income has been shown as NIL and no carry forward loss has been shown for the relevant period. It is stated that Explanation 5 to section 11(1) of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 with prospective effect from 01.04.2022. However, this explanation is clarificatory in nature

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, I limit the disallowance to Rs.2.16.000 and the balance rent Rs.9,66,000 is allowed.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is before us. 36. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the assessee had filed the details of the break up of Rs.11,82,000/- which

M/S. SORMISTHA BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,ASANSOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.144/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) M/S Sormistha Builders & Vs. Acit/Circle-1/Asansol-713304 Construction (P) Limited, Senreleigh Road, West Apcar Gardens, Asansol-4, Dist-Burdwan-713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics 8345 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.N.Ram, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabal Choudhury, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol, In Appeal No.234/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-1/Asl/11-12, Dated 01.12.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 11.03.2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 12.01.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18,63,098/-. Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Various Additions. M/S Sormistha Builders & Construction (P) Ltd.

house property nor under the head business income. Considering the factual position and the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act, we do M/s Sormistha

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHATOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Property Rights (‘IPRs’) both in India and abroad. In relation thereto, the assessee had obtained technical information or consultancy services from foreign attorneys. The AO observed that although the services were rendered by the foreign attorneys outside India but the services were essentially connected with the assessee’s profession carried on by him in India and therefore these payments were

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

37 of the said Judgment, it was clearly recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court that NRC had acted as a consultant and the services rendered by NRC came within the purview of consultancy service. In these circumstances it was held that fee for technical services being rendered and used in India were rightly liable to be taxed in India

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

House property in Singapore is not taxable in India under DTAA while as per Article 25 of DTAA, it is taxable in India. 3 M/s UCO Bank 10. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 relates to addition