JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

House Property income was assessed in pursuance to Provisions of Section 23 and as such, the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Kolkata is bad in law. 3 I.T.A. No. 84/Kol/2019 I.T.A. No. 2389/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 JCT Limited. 3. That the appellant craves leave to supplement, substitute, add, alter, amend, cancel or otherwise modify

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Housing Project Pvt. Ltd. The said investment in Right to Property was a capital asset and was shown in the Audited Accounts as Investment in Right to Property' under the head 'Investments - Current and Non-current investments', refer Note II of the audited accounts. The investment in Right to Property was never considered as 'stock in trade' by the assessee

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

391 (Kol) and Ritz Suppliers Pvt. ltd. (2020) 113 taxmann.com 349 (Kol). 3.8. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee noted about the undisputed fact that only the leasehold rights in an industrial plot of land has been transferred to SMI for a total consideration of Rs. 2 Cr. He further

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]

391(2) and 394 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and was duly sanctioned by the Hon’ble High courts at Calcutta (on 08.03.2011) and Bombay (on 21.04.2011) specifying the appointed date as 01.03.2010. The question of relevancy of effective date/appointed date in a scheme of merger sanctioned by Hon’ble High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

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

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

391/- 7. From perusal of the above detail, we notice that six months prior to the date of sale of property at Jamshedpur on 19/07/2013, assessee had already booked a flat at Gurgaon. As per the provisions of Section 54 of the Act, the assessee can claim the exemption/deduction for the investment in the new house

MURARILAL MURARKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 44AB of the Act. The assessee had e- filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 6,80,980/- comprising of income from salary, house property and business or profession. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS, the reasons being large commission expenses

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. MILESTONE FINSTOCK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..…………..………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd..……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 62A, Hazra Road, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aaccm0280B] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N S Saini, Ar & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Of The Cit(Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 1075 Days & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are As Under: Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd

391/- and further as on 31.03.2012, the assessee had an amount of Rs.11,03,57,989/- as interest-free funds in the form of share capital and reserves and surplus. Therefore, the interest-free funds available with the assessee company are much more in comparison to the advances made. We find that in this context, the Ld. CIT (A) relied

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

house at Ashray,a 78 Hatkesh Society, 9th Road, JVPD scheme, Vile Parie West, Mumbai-49 is udner “pagdri” system , and I have no other immovable property. My brother Shri Pradeep P Sureka has flat in his name in Pune. This office premise at Room No.53/54, 3rd floor, 63/71. Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 is in the name

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house / real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context of Section

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

property. It follows that the Authority cannot pronounce any ruling on the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 92 of the Act. 14. In the light of the above discussion, the applicant has no option but to comply with the provisions of the Act including the legislation relating to transfer pricing, namely, sections

PEERLESS HOTELS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2002-03

housed in an old building which was earlier occupied Ritz Continental Hotel. The assessee came to occupy the said hotel premises from the government of West Bengal on lease basis in 1993. It was found that the building was suffering from structural problem and therefore the assessee appointed a consultant to examine the damages and defect. In this regard tests

ON PROCESS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, 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]

section 9(1)(i) of the Act and in that view of the matter the income of the payees were chargeable to tax which is to attract sec. 195 of the Act as erroneously held by the AO. The ld. AR further submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was full of contradictions and suffered from many

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]

section 9(1)(i) of the Act and in that view of the matter the income of the payees were chargeable to tax which is to attract sec. 195 of the Act as erroneously held by the AO. The ld. AR further submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was full of contradictions and suffered from many