ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 427/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6(2), Kolkata Vs 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber Vs Tax, Circle-6(2), Kolkata 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/06/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross-Objection Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 965 Days In Filing The Cross-Objection By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A 2

reassessment order the AO has treated the entire loss suffered from Derivative transaction as speculative in nature by invoking explanation to Sec, 73 of the Act. I have gone through the submission of the appellant and order passed by the AO. All the transactions in which the appellant has incurred loss is in relation to derivative transactions. Derivative transactions

SHREEKANT RAY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-61(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act was passed by the AO at the total income of Rs. 1,05,46,917/- by making an addition of Rs. 94,14,477/- on account of deemed dividend

MALIKA ROY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering host of decisions propounded following propositions in the concluding paragraph of the judgment, which read as under:- “Summary of the legal position 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto

ARATI RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. -3(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering host of decisions propounded following propositions in the concluding paragraph of the judgment, which read as under:- “Summary of the legal position 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto

SAMIT RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering host of decisions propounded following propositions in the concluding paragraph of the judgment, which read as under:- “Summary of the legal position 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto

DCIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN BHANUPATH ROAD NEAR WHITE HALL GANGTOK vs. HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, SIKKIM

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

deemed as the credit belongs to earlier years and disallowed the same. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), where the assessee challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer stating that the ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 21.12.2020 questioning the deduction claimed u/s 80IC

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

dividend income could have been earned. Hence the addition is\nsustained and grounds of appeal no. 1 to 6 are dismissed.\n6.2 Ground of appeal No. 7:-\nThis ground is general in nature and the appellant has not filed any specific\nsubmission on this ground. There is nothing apparent from record to support\nsuch ground and hence do not need

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

dividend income could have been earned. Hence the addition is\nsustained and grounds of appeal no. 1 to 6 are dismissed.\n6.2 Ground of appeal No. 7:-\nThis ground is general in nature and the appellant has not filed any specific\nsubmission on this ground. There is nothing apparent from record to support\nsuch ground and hence do not need

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

deemed income for the purpose of section 115J, then it should be that income which is acceptable to the authorities under the Companies Act. There cannot be two incomes one for the purpose of Companies Act and another for the purpose of Income-tax Act. If the Legislature intended the Assessing Officer to reassess the company's income, then

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

deemed income for the purpose of section 115J, then\nit should be that income which is acceptable to the authorities under the\nCompanies Act. There cannot be two incomes one for the purpose of\nCompanies Act and another for the purpose of Income-tax Act. If the\nLegislature intended the Assessing Officer to reassess the company's\nincome, then

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

deemed income for the purpose of section 115J, then\nit should be that income which is acceptable to the authorities under the\nCompanies Act. There cannot be two incomes one for the purpose of\nCompanies Act and another for the purpose of Income-tax Act. If the\nLegislature intended the Assessing Officer to reassess the company's\nincome, then

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

deemed income for the purpose of section 115J, then\nit should be that income which is acceptable to the authorities under the\nCompanies Act. There cannot be two incomes one for the purpose of\nCompanies Act and another for the purpose of Income-tax Act. If the\nLegislature intended the Assessing Officer to reassess the company's\nincome, then

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

deemed income for the purpose of section 115J, then\nit should be that income which is acceptable to the authorities under the\nCompanies Act. There cannot be two incomes one for the purpose of\nCompanies Act and another for the purpose of Income-tax Act. If the\nLegislature intended the Assessing Officer to reassess the company's\nincome, then

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

deemed income for the purpose of section 115J, then\nit should be that income which is acceptable to the authorities under the\nCompanies Act. There cannot be two incomes one for the purpose of\nCompanies Act and another for the purpose of Income-tax Act. If the\nLegislature intended the Assessing Officer to reassess the company's\nincome, then

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant Flat 6C, Block 2, Shree Ramnagar Residential Complex, Vip Road, Tegharia, W.B – 700052. [Pan: Actpa2426P] Vs. Ito, Kolkata……………..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Puja Agarwal, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Who Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.12.2021 For The Financial Year 2020-21 Relevant To Assessment Year 2021-22 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.25,58,440/-. The Assessee Discharged Her Tax Liability By Way Of Tax Deducted At Source Amounting To Rs.2,80,028/-, Self-Assessment Tax Of Rs.22,740/- & Foreign Tax Credit (‘Ftc’) Of Rs.2,25,936/-. The Assessee Also Filed Form.67 Which Was Filed On 25.01.2022. An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.10.2022 In Which The Ftc Was Not Provided To The Assessee. This Disallowance Resulted In Tax Demand Of Rs.2,79,130/-.

reassessment by taking into 7 I.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extent

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

reassessment by taking into consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner

JASPAL SINGH BINDRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed and the Ld

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

reassessment by taking into consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the Jaspal Singh Bindra; A.Y. 2022-23 petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set wade only to the extent of disallowing

SHYAM GREENFIELD DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment order dated 14.03.2024 passed u/s 147/144B of the Act ought to be declared bad in law. I.T.A. No.: 1164/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shyam Greenfield Developer Private Limited. (iii) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the so-called information was not backed by any specific evidence / material in as much

SANMOY RAY,HOOGHLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(2), HOOHGHLY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Ld. Ar Argued That The Filing Of Form 67 Within The Stipulated Time Was A Directory Provision & Not Mandatory. It Was Averred That The Us-India Dtaa Would Come To The Rescue Of The Assessee In This Regard.

reassessment by taking into consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set wade only to the extent of disallowing of FTC clam made by the petitioner