POINEER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 467/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Pioneer Property Management Limited,…….Appellant 1St Floor, 10A, Rowdon Street, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaccp5904H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Circle-7(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 07, 2024 O R D E R

5A, 5B, 6A & 6B of Block-4 of the said Silver Spring Complex situated at 5JBS, Halden Avenue, Kolkata-700105. Flat Nos. 5C and 6C are stated to be used as a Guest House by the Company. The ld. Assessing Officer deputed an Inspector to conduct field inquiry on this premises. He deputed the Inspector on the second time also

RISHI KUMAR AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CC-XXII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Bench Is Squarely Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court. The Ld.Ar Submits That A Paper Book Containing Pages 1 To 44 Was Filed On 29- 03-2017 & Referred To Page No-7 Where A Copy Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court Was Placed & Urged The Bench To Allow The Appeal In Terms Of This Decision. We Find That The Issue Before Us Is Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows Supra & We Proceed To Hear The Case & Dispose Of The Same By Perusing The Material On Record. 3. The Only Issue Is To Be Decided As To Whether The Cit-A Justified In Confirming The Impugned Penalties Imposed By The Ao U/S. 271(1) (C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

house property and business. In response to notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed all the details as required by the AO. The AO accepted the said return as filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act and treated the same as undisclosed income as the assessee failed to file

PRABAL GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-62(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.630/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

property is handed over to the developer for development of project. The receipt of consideration (Share of Constructed area or Share revenue) in future does not affect the timing of the taxable event. However, with effect from 01.04.2018 in order to mitigate hardship to the assessee the Finance Act 2017 had inserted sub section (5A) which provide that in case

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

house at Nalla Fort was used during the relevant previous year for business related activities of the appellant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant and solely relying on the observations made by the Assessing Officer in relation to a previous year different from the previous year relevant to the assessment under

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

house at Nalla Fort was used during the relevant previous year for business related activities of the appellant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant and solely relying on the observations made by the Assessing Officer in relation to a previous year different from the previous year relevant to the assessment under

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

house at Nalla Fort was used during the relevant previous year for business related activities of the appellant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant and solely relying on the observations made by the Assessing Officer in relation to a previous year different from the previous year relevant to the assessment under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections by the assessee are allowed

property) ; 30. The officer, so authorized could conduct a search and proceed as per the requirements laid down in the said section. The aforesaid three primary 15 ITA No. 2148/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 110/Kol/2018 M/s. Bhavya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No. 139/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 09/Kol/2018 M/s. SRA Merchandise Pvt. Ltd conditions for invoking search proceedings cannot be given

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

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

5a: Production value ; or 5b: Production quantities (mostly at AG level). 5c: Purchase value in case of outsourced production or contract manufacturing (internal or external Philips) The services as per Module 3 are Nil for Indian entity. The assessee has allocated costs in proportion of the turnover for Modules 1, 2, & 4 whereas the allocation for Module 5 is basis

M/S PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

5a: Production value ; or 5b: Production quantities (mostly at AG level). 5c: Purchase value in case of outsourced production or contract manufacturing (internal or external Philips) The services as per Module 3 are Nil for Indian entity. The assessee has allocated costs in proportion of the turnover for Modules 1, 2, & 4 whereas the allocation for Module 5 is basis