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

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 and claimed as exempt. The findings

MANSAROVAR FERROUS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 13(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of irrelevant considerations and on mere suspicions, surmises and conjectures. 13. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,19,67,672 in complete disregard of the binding judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

ATLANTIC DEVCON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.WARD-14(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Smt. Madhumita Roy

391/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice under section 143(2) was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee on 23.09.2013. As noted by the 1 A.Y. 2012-2013 Assessing Officer, the assessee-company during the year under consideration had raised share capital and share premium aggregating to Rs.23.52 crores

UNIVERSAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,118/-, viz., after including education cess component as well. I.T.A. No.: 223/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Universal Trading Company Limited. 6. Ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to refund of excess DDT of Rs.22,38,770/- paid by the assessee. The facts relating to this issue are that during the year, the assessee had declared and paid dividend

MR. SANJIV SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 10(38) of the Act. We also find that the various case laws of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court relied upon by the ld AR and findings given thereon would apply to the facts of the instant case. The ld DR was not able to furnish any contrary cases to this effect. Hence we hold that

SMT. DIPIKA SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 10(38) of the Act. We also find that the various case laws of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court relied upon by the ld AR and findings given thereon would apply to the facts of the instant case. The ld DR was not able to furnish any contrary cases to this effect. Hence we hold that

JANGLOOS CHANDAK CREATION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

JANGLOOS CHANDAK CREATION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

MD. MUJIBUR RAHAMAN,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

DESANA POLY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

TRIDENT SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

TRIDENT SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

VICTORY SURVEILLIANCE & ESCORTS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

KANCHAN METALS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India

M/S JAIKISHANDASS MALL JUTE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CPC, , BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, “income payable for service rendered in India