DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1309/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maa Amba Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aaecm 6507 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

b assessable as ‘ business income’. It was argued that it was the ld AO’s view that the main object of the company was to construct and let out properties was of no consequence. The assessee drew the attention of the ld CITA to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the submission of the AR on this point along with the case laws relied upon

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the submission of the AR on this point along with the case laws relied upon

ACIT, CIRCLE - 11(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

section 40A of the Act and held that it is a business decision of the assessee which cannot be interfered. Ld. CIT(A) noted that AO cannot step into the shoes of a businessman and thus, deleted the disallowance so made amounting to Rs.92,62,860/-. We note that there is no dispute on the payment of interest. The issue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

house property' is a loss, in respect of the assessment years commencing on 1st day of April, 1995 and the 1st day of April, 1996, such loss shall be first set off under sub- sections (1) and (2) and thereafter the loss referred to in section 71A shall be set off in the relevant assessment year in accordance with

M/S. SATTS ESTATES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.S.Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2012-13

House Property’. There is only one other receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- being compensation on cancellation of the property transaction. The remuneration to the directors is on a higher side looking at the extent of business and the revenue of Rs.2,00,000/- shown. Accordingly the compensation to the directors of Rs.2,60,000/- would be fair and reasonable

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROHIT & CO., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey

property are relatives, the assessee has been able to bring on record relevant material to support its claim of having taken the premises in question on rent. Next we need to see whether the assessee was able to show that the rental premises was used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. In this regard it was brought

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROHIT & CO., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey

property are relatives, the assessee has been able to bring on record relevant material to support its claim of having taken the premises in question on rent. Next we need to see whether the assessee was able to show that the rental premises was used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. In this regard it was brought

M/S VISA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE11(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals for AYs 2005-06 and 2007-08 are partly allowed and appeal for AY 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

House, Alipore, Kolkata- Kolkata. 700027. (PAN: AAACV8649P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 13.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these captioned appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata vide

M/S VISA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE11(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals for AYs 2005-06 and 2007-08 are partly allowed and appeal for AY 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

House, Alipore, Kolkata- Kolkata. 700027. (PAN: AAACV8649P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 13.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these captioned appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata vide

M/S VISA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE11(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals for AYs 2005-06 and 2007-08 are partly allowed and appeal for AY 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

House, Alipore, Kolkata- Kolkata. 700027. (PAN: AAACV8649P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 13.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these captioned appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata vide

RIVERBANK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT -4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Tax Audit report of the assessee for the financial year 2010-11, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assessee company has made payments to its related party as under: i. Hiland Projects Ltd : Share of the Manpower & Office Infrastructure Cost : Rs.42,48,756/- ii. Hiland Projects Ltd : Reimbursement of Expenses

SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.1111/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sri Anil Kumar Jain -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xx, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Acfpj0712R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

House’s income for the relevant assessment year was below the limits for which there was no tax liability and therefore provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable. ITA No.1111/Kol/2015-Sri Anil Kumar Jain-A.Y.2009-10 3 8. I have considered the submissions of the assessee. Even assuming that it was a case of payment

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1359/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 0993 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property", "Capital gains" and "Income from other sources"], or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

40A (2) (a) under which certain types of expenditure incurred by way of payment to related parties is not deductible where the AO "is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods." In such event, "so much of the expenditure as is so considered

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 &

40A (2) (a) under which certain types of expenditure incurred by way of payment to related parties is not deductible where the AO "is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods." In such event, "so much of the expenditure as is so considered

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 &

40A (2) (a) under which certain types of expenditure incurred by way of payment to related parties is not deductible where the AO "is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods." In such event, "so much of the expenditure as is so considered

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 &

40A (2) (a) under which certain types of expenditure incurred by way of payment to related parties is not deductible where the AO "is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods." In such event, "so much of the expenditure as is so considered