RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property

ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEVA LEASE AND FINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Acit Circle-15(1), V/S. M/S Deva Lease & Aayaka Bhawan,Poorva Finance Pvt. Ltd., 1A, 110, Shantipally, Kolkta- K.B.R. Complex, 4, Ho- 107 Chi-Min Sarani, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcd 7839 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O. No.54/Kol/2017 (A/O Ita No.961/Kol/2017) Assessment Year :2012-13 M/S Deva Lease & V/S. Acit, Circle-15(1), Finance Pvt. Ltd., 1A, Aaykar Bhavan, Poorva, K.B.R. Complex, 4, Ho- 110, Shantipally, Chi-Min Sarani, Kolkata- Kolakta-107 71 [Pan No.Aabcd 7839 E] .. "तया"ेपक/Co-Objector ""यथ"/Respondent

house property. The AO is directed accordingly with direction to allow statutory claims u/s 24 as claimed by assessee in respect of both properties and entire rental income. In view o this claim found admissible and allowed. The alternate claim for depreciation

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation in respect of Delhi property and other fixed asset for ₹22,53,751/- only. 5.2 Therefore, the assessee in its income tax returns shown the income as detailed under:- Sl.No. Particulars 1 Income under the head house

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation in respect of Delhi property and other fixed asset for ₹22,53,751/- only. 5.2 Therefore, the assessee in its income tax returns shown the income as detailed under:- Sl.No. Particulars 1 Income under the head house

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation in respect of Delhi property and other fixed asset for ₹22,53,751/- only. 5.2 Therefore, the assessee in its income tax returns shown the income as detailed under:- Sl.No. Particulars 1 Income under the head house

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation in respect of Delhi property and other fixed asset for ₹22,53,751/- only. 5.2 Therefore, the assessee in its income tax returns shown the income as detailed under:- Sl.No. Particulars 1 Income under the head house

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

House property”, Short term capital gain and Income from other sources (interest on SB Account). The Assessee filed his return of income for AY 2006-07 on 31.10.2006 declaring total income of Rs.88,96,850/-. Along with the return of income, the Assessee filed audit report required to be filed u/s.44AB of the Act, and also audited profit

HARIT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

depreciation on plant & machinery Rs. 1,177/-. 9. The details of the expenses incurred at the said farm house and the horticulture income , which is ‘ NIL’ for the year under appeal, it AY 2014-15 Harit Properties

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue(in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

house property income and allowing deduction of expenses and depreciation instead of deduction of 30% of annual rental value. 2. That

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue(in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

house property income and allowing deduction of expenses and depreciation instead of deduction of 30% of annual rental value. 2. That

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

House property". Further the Ld. AO disallowed the expenses such as depreciation, repairs & maintenance and computed the income from house

M/S PYNE PROPERTIES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 5(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Properties P.Ltd. 9 18. In Para-17 of the order of the CIT(A), he has observed as follows: The assessment records reveal that the appellant has not claimed the depreciation in the computation of income since assessment year 2001-02. The appellant is only showing the income from house