APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

properties at a values which were lower than the stamp duty value, the ld. Assessing Officer did not dispute the same after exercising his discretion under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The ld. A.R. also drew our attention to the fact that Notes to Clause 29B of the Tax Audit Report, copy of which is placed at pages

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

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

house property at all and would be the income falling under the present section 56(2){iii). Further, what follows

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property belonged to Amarjit\nSing and 25% to Manjit Singh and 25% of the assessee i.e. Kajari\nBanerjee.\n06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available\non record, we find that the agreement for the purchase of the said\nproperty was made on 28.12.2012, when the assessee paid by cheque\nof ₹10 lacs and the remaining consideration

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

property in common pool, it will be an income of the 'HUF', however, the same will be exempt from taxation as the I.T.A No. 2244/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 12 Shri Gyanchand M. Bardia vs. ITO individual members of an 'HUF' have been included in the meaning of 'relative' as provided in the explanation to section 56(2

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

56,760/- revised computation) 1,64,80,407/- Less: Registration Expenses (As per Assessee’s 75,000/- computation) Long Term Capital Gains 1,64,05,407/- Less: Deduction u/s. 54EC (as discussed above) 50,00,000/- Total: 1,14,05,407/- 9. Therefore, the AO computed the total Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.1,14,05,407/- instead of Rs.69

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

56,760/- revised computation) 1,64,80,407/- Less: Registration Expenses (As per Assessee’s 75,000/- computation) Long Term Capital Gains 1,64,05,407/- Less: Deduction u/s. 54EC (as discussed above) 50,00,000/- Total: 1,14,05,407/- 9. Therefore, the AO computed the total Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.1,14,05,407/- instead of Rs.69

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) valuation of jewellery,— (i) ...; (ii) …; Page 6 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 2011/Kol/2018 C.O. No.: 117/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. LNB Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (iii) …date; (b) valuation of archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures or any work of art,— (i) …; (ii) …; (iii) …; (c) valuation of shares and securities

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property without considering the facts that as per the said old agreement dt. 06.01.1975 between the assessee and the erstwhile owner M/s Murray & Co. Pvt. Ltd., duly authenticated and registered by a Notary, the assessee firm became the deemed owner of the property u/s 2(47)(v) of the I.Tax Act and accordingly the gain 1 loss on sale

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property without considering the facts that as per the said old agreement dt. 06.01.1975 between the assessee and the erstwhile owner M/s Murray & Co. Pvt. Ltd., duly authenticated and registered by a Notary, the assessee firm became the deemed owner of the property u/s 2(47)(v) of the I.Tax Act and accordingly the gain 1 loss on sale

M/S. MICROFIRM CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Properties Private Limited and 1,30,000, 0.1% RNCPS were allotted to M/s. Jaguar Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had received an amount of Rs.41 Crores from this allotment. The Assessing Officer considered the valuation report furnished by the assessee regarding the fair market value of RNCPS , applied Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, and came

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MICROFIRM CAPITAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Properties Private Limited and 1,30,000, 0.1% RNCPS were allotted to M/s. Jaguar Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had received an amount of Rs.41 Crores from this allotment. The Assessing Officer considered the valuation report furnished by the assessee regarding the fair market value of RNCPS , applied Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, and came

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

house • Festival celebrations • Health Club • Any other club • Gifts • Scholarship to employees’ children • Consumption of fuel other than industrial fuel ITA No.1866/Kol/2014 A.Y.2006-07 : 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

house • Festival celebrations • Health Club • Any other club • Gifts • Scholarship to employees’ children • Consumption of fuel other than industrial fuel ITA No.1866/Kol/2014 A.Y.2006-07 : 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

house • Festival celebrations • Health Club • Any other club • Gifts • Scholarship to employees’ children • Consumption of fuel other than industrial fuel ITA No.1866/Kol/2014 A.Y.2006-07 : 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

house • Festival celebrations • Health Club • Any other club • Gifts • Scholarship to employees’ children • Consumption of fuel other than industrial fuel ITA No.1866/Kol/2014 A.Y.2006-07 : 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned