AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

reassessment order is bad in law. 12. On the issue of jurisdiction, I find that it is admitted fact that the ITO, Ward On the issue of jurisdiction, I find that it is admitted fact that the ITO, Ward On the issue of jurisdiction, I find that it is admitted fact that the ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata, has jurisdiction

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

35 to 37 - …….. Pages 39 to 46 ……. Q. No. 19. Please go through the bunch of loose sheets marked HRV -10 and explain? Ans. This bound pages 1 to 53 relates to accounted and unaccounted transaction of M/s PPL. We find that the assessee had demonstrated the manner of deriving the undisclosed income vis- a- vis the seized documents

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

35 SOT 406 (Mum.) - Intervet India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 39 SOT 93 (Mum.) - Asstt. CIT v. Dufon Laboratories [2010] 39 SOT 59 (Mum.) 11. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT reported in [2011] 44 SOT 391/9

ITO,WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

35,95,472/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 18.09.2009. 4. Subsequently, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed excessive bad debt to the tune of ₹90 lakh which was allowed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO found his belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment under section

M/S GASSIN PIERRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

section 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has given donation of Rs. 25,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health and claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 43,75,000/- during the year. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued as to why the donation claimed u/s 35

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

II. ITA No. 636/Kol/2024 (AY 2012-13) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 636/Kol/2024: “1. That on the facts and under circumstances of the case, penalty order passed by the learned assessing officer as confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals)-NFAC is not tenable as notice issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) dated

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

II. ITA No. 636/Kol/2024 (AY 2012-13) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 636/Kol/2024: “1. That on the facts and under circumstances of the case, penalty order passed by the learned assessing officer as confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals)-NFAC is not tenable as notice issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) dated

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

section 263 (1), it is and it was open to the Commissioner not only to consider the record of that proceeding but also the record relating to that proceeding available to him at the time of examination.' (h) Reference may also be made to the judgement in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. Asstt

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

35. As far as applicability of Clause ( c ) of Article 13(4) of the Indo-UK DTAA is concerned, the Assessee submitted that the said clause contemplates that fees paid should be for making available of the technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. In other words, the technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. must be made available to the Assessee

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

35. As far as applicability of Clause ( c ) of Article 13(4) of the Indo-UK DTAA is concerned, the Assessee submitted that the said clause contemplates that fees paid should be for making available of the technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. In other words, the technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. must be made available to the Assessee

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAVIN CONSTRUCTION & CREDIT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

35(1)(ii) and 14A of the Act. Thus Ground Nos. 4, 5 & 6 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 16. As far as Ground Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, there are against the finding of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained unsecured loans at Rs.10

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

ii) DCIT Vs. Greal Wall Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.660/Kol/2011 (referred to page 10 para 11) iii) Shri Raj Kumar Goel Vs. ITO ITA No.1028/Kol/2017 (referred to page 5-8 para 11) (iv) Classic Flour & Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT ITA Nos. 764 to 766/Kol/2014 (page 7 para 12 to 16) v) PCIT Vs. Shodiman Investments

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

ii) The ground on which you propose to disallow is that Form 58A issued by the said Donee state that the amount received from our client is Nil. A perusal of the Form will clearly show that the certificate issued by the Donee clearly states that they have received a sum of Rs. 50 lacs from our 19 I.T.A

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

35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment order is 5 ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Samit Ray erroneous, which has caused prejudice

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

35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment order is 5 ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Samit Ray erroneous, which has caused prejudice

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

35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment order is 5 ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Samit Ray erroneous, which has caused prejudice

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

35 which are as under: “The appellant is a trust running an educational institution. Return of income u/s 139(1) was not filed for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment u/s 147 was initiated on 25.03.2021 or A.Y.2016 for cash deposits of Rs.3,20,49,820/- made in various bank accounts of the appellant. The appellant had obtained registration u/s 12AB on30.08.2021

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

35(SC) ii. Brinda Ramakrishna us. ITO 193 ITD 840 (Bang) iii. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd vs Asst. CIT. ITA No. 29/ Bang/2001 iv. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT, W.P. No.5834 of 2022 7. Before proceeding further, we would like to reproduce rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) which relates to foreign tax credit

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings the ITO made addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of ostensible transactions in hundi