M/S DIVAKAR SOLAR SYSTEM LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

7 Divakar Solar System Ltd., AY 2012-13 double taxation of the same amount which is not permissible in law. Reliance was also placed on certain judgements in support of its propositions. The ld CIT(A) upheld the disallowance by observing as under :- “6.3. The A.O. has not taken any statement of Mrs Poddar to prove his case. Having regard

MAK, ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT(CEN.)-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

40A(7) of the Act, 1961 and added back to your total assessed income. Issue related to payment of leave encashment to the tune of Rs. 76,016/-:- In the instant case, it is further observed from Form no. - 3CD [(SI. No. - 26(i)(B)(b)] that you had not paid leave encashment to the tune

SHELTER PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (A)-XII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

7 M/s. Shelter Projects Limited 47. Consequently, the substantial question of law as reproduced in the beginning of the judgment are answered in the manner indicated herein before and the appeals of the assesse are disposed of accordingly. “ 11. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of C.S Atwal in the aforementioned decision placed reliance

SMT REENA MAJUMDAR,MIDNAPORE vs. CIT (A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

house property” and the question that arises is what is such annual value of the property. In this regard, it is observed that the fair rental value of Rs.1,20,000/- is taken by the Assessing Officer as annual value of the assessee’s property without giving any basis and the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time

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

ACCORDION PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1546/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Accordion Properties Pvt. Ltd. –Vs- Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaeca 0439 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 24 only and the assessee is not entitled to get any other deduction in respect of that as per provision of the Act. Considering the same the following expenditure should be disallowed under the head of ‘income from Business or Profession’. Those are- i) Corporation Tax : Rs. 39,852/- ii) Maintenance Expenses : Rs. 69,600/- iii) Depreciation

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

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

BHABESH MAJUMDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2009-10

house property and from other sources. According to AO, the assessee disclosed ‘short term capital loss (Rs.7,01,46,528/-)’ instead of ‘long term capital loss (Rs. 2,85,67,594/-)’ and ‘long term capital loss’ instead of ‘short term capital loss’. In explanation before the AO, the assessee stated in penalty proceedings that due to an inadvertent mistake

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)

7. I have perused the relevant bills of M/s. Mridula Art House which are placed at pages 27 to 46 of the assessee’s paper book. The description in all the bills is that the payment in question was only towards labour charges. At page 24 of the assessee’s paper book M/s. Mridula Art House has given a certificate

ONKAR PARIVAHAN FINANCE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

40A(3) in respect of the following business expenses incurred on different dates. (a) Purchase of fruits amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- (b) Expenses incurred for fashion show at Delhi for Rs. 72,386/- 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition

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

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

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

40a(ia) but will be allowed in the year in which TDS is deposited thereon. The appellant has deposited the TDS on 13.03.2012 and has made a prayer that the said amount should be allowed in assessment year 2012-13. I direct that the Assessing Officer should allow the amount of Rs.14,61,956/- after due verification during the assessment

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

property and its agricultural use need to be ascertained by the AO with reference to the documents and earlier year records. Accordingly the ld. CIT(A) disregarded the submission of the assessee by holding as under : “In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that owing to the omission on the part of the AO to conduct

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

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