M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

property reported in TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during

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)

house property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar supra had placed heavy reliance on the finding of aforesaid facts recorded by the tribunal. Whereas in the instant case before us, the ld CITA had categorically stated that the assessee had carried on an organized activity with a view to commercially exploit the civic infrastructure

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

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]

9 Divakar Solar System Ltd., AY 2012-13 qualification is required as the same could be done by experience. Often it could be noticed that the business acumen is developed by a person not by educational qualification but by his / her sheer native intelligence and presence of mind which does not come from education alone. We also find that

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Housing Development Limited and no income accrued or received by the assessee under the agreement dt: 31-03-2009, as such, therefore, the said agreement can not be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and thus, the provisions of Section

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

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

9. The issue involved in Ground No. 3 relates to the addition of Rs.84,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of deemed rental income from the house property owned by the assessee. 10. During the year under consideration, the assessee was the owner of the residential property at C-40, Durgachak

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

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

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

9(2) Kolkata...................…………………………………………………….......Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 21, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : January 25, 2019 ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice President This appeal filed

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

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

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

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

BARDHAMAN DISHARI SHRAMIK O JANAALYAN SAMABAY SAMITY LIMITED,BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

9,00,000/- was given as a grant to Cyber Research & Training Institute and the same was not related to the business activity of the assessee. Accordingly, the same was also disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein

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

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

House, 119, Park\nStreet, Kolkata-700016,\nWest Bengal\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nDCIT, Central Circle 4(1)\nAaykar Bhawan Poorva,\n110, Shantipally, Em Bypass,\nKolkata-700107, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. AABCB0986G\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nDate of hearing:\nDate of pronouncement:\nShri SK Tulsiyan &\nShri Puja Somani, ARs\nShri Ms. Archana Gupta, DR\n14.01.2026\n20.01.2026\nORDER\nPer Rajesh Kumar