ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property, the assessee was not entitled to anything over and above the agreed rent. The said action of the AO has resulted in taxing notional income in the hands of the assessee, which never accrued and hence cannot be brought to tax. Accordingly, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and hence

HEMRAJ MAHABIR PRASAD LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

801 (SC), it has been held that the matter has to be considered in the light of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. The facts and circumstances in the appellant's case, as discussed earlier, clearly lead to inference that the transactions under consideration were not genuine share trading transactions. 6. Even otherwise, it is undisputed that the said loss

M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

801 A(4)(iii) and in that event the assessee company cannot be legally deprived of the said deduction merely due to the failure of the CBDT to issue the Notification for no fault of the assessee. 3. For that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Ltd. CIT(A) was wholly wrong & unjustified in directing

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

property which in the opinion of the Engineer-In -Charge are due to the negligence of the contractor, are promptly rectified by the contractor at: their own cost and expenses and! According to the direction and satisfaction of the Engineer-In ·-Charge. viii. As per the contract the assessee is not supposed to sublet / assign any portion of the work

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

house at Ashray,a 78 Hatkesh Society, 9th Road, JVPD scheme, Vile Parie West, Mumbai-49 is udner “pagdri” system , and I have no other immovable property. My brother Shri Pradeep P Sureka has flat in his name in Pune. This office premise at Room No.53/54, 3rd floor, 63/71. Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 is in the name

TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

801 and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act for the alleged unexplained cash credit of Rs. 6.52 Crore received by the assessee towards share capital and share premium. Ld. AO also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs. 1,02,350/- observing that the assessee had made investments in equity shares. Income assessed

N L C NALCO INDIA LTD PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

801/- Tax Audit Report as on 1.4.2002 Difference (rounded off) Rs.8,116/- In view of the above reconciliation statement, we are of the view that the disallowance should be restricted to the extent of Rs.8116/- only and that that extent the addition is confirmed and balance is deleted. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 9 ITA Nos.529/K/2008

NLC NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

801/- Tax Audit Report as on 1.4.2002 Difference (rounded off) Rs.8,116/- In view of the above reconciliation statement, we are of the view that the disallowance should be restricted to the extent of Rs.8116/- only and that that extent the addition is confirmed and balance is deleted. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 9 ITA Nos.529/K/2008

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred

M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

801 was not a fresh claim. The above mentioned Board's Circular permits the AO to allow any deduction, although not claimed in the return, if the same is allowable being a patent mistake of fact or law. This Circular does not permit the AO to allow any fresh or new claim made by the assessee during the assessment proceeding

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

801 was not a fresh claim. The above mentioned Board's Circular permits the AO to allow any deduction, although not claimed in the return, if the same is allowable being a patent mistake of fact or law. This Circular does not permit the AO to allow any fresh or new claim made by the assessee during the assessment proceeding

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

801). (iv) The assessee has submitted the search forcomparables of AlmatisInc which is given on page nos. 661 to 663 of paper book. (v) The search for comparables of AlmatizGmbH(Gernmay) and Almatis BV were furnished by assessee (vide nos. 663 to 666). (vi) The assessee has submitted business description of the comparables. The ld. DRP sent these documents

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

801). (iv) The assessee has submitted the search forcomparables of AlmatisInc which is given on page nos. 661 to 663 of paper book. (v) The search for comparables of AlmatizGmbH(Gernmay) and Almatis BV were furnished by assessee (vide nos. 663 to 666). (vi) The assessee has submitted business description of the comparables. The ld. DRP sent these documents

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

properties, obligation and securities. The company also carries on Software business as manufacturer, buyer, seller, trader, importer, exporter, distributor, broker, stockiest, and omission agent. The company was incorporated as a private company in 1976, promoted by Giriraj Kishor Agarwal and Tunu Agarwal. Other key persons are Hemant Kumar Tibrewala, Shardadevi Tibrewala, Kamalkant Tibrewala Financials of the company for the past

SRI SANJEEV JHUNJHUNWALA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) various tribunal decisions as well as hon'ble high court’s judgments adding similar sums to be unexplained cash credits are also cited in support. 4. I find no merit in either of the Revenue’s above stated submissions. It emerges that this tribunal’s co-ordinate

SMT. NITA JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) various tribunal decisions as well as hon'ble high court’s judgments adding similar sums to be unexplained cash credits are also cited in support. 4. I find no merit in either of the Revenue’s above stated submissions. It emerges that this tribunal’s co-ordinate

SRI ASHOK JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) various tribunal decisions as well as hon'ble high court’s judgments adding similar sums to be unexplained cash credits are also cited in support. 4. I find no merit in either of the Revenue’s above stated submissions. It emerges that this tribunal’s co-ordinate