ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

disallowance made by the AO on account of and deduction U/s 54F of the I.T. Act,61. 4. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows. The original return of income, under section

MAMTA ANCHALIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

section 54F. He accordingly disallowed the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54F and made an addition of Rs. 27,20,759/- to the total

SMT.BARNALI DHAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Barnali Dhar Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata C/O. S.D. Verma, Advocate, 2Nd Floor, 7, Vs. Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Pan: Ajppd 6989 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 10, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 10 Was Not Justified In Not Deleting A Sum Of Rs. 9933057/- Being The Amount Wrongly Included By The Appellant Under The Head Capital Gain, While Filing Return Of Income Whereas As Per Section 54F No Amount Is Liable To Be Taxed. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Or Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal At Hearing Stage.”

disallowing a sum of Rs. 9252834/- under section 54F out of total claim of Rs. 11657762/- as made in the return

SHALINI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

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

section 54F. He accordingly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 54F in respect of cost of construction

PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

54F. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by the appellant under section 54 and 54F of the Act on the ground

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F", "Section 54G" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act is justified when

SRI BASUDEB SENGUPTA,BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 3,ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowing his claim for exemption under section 54F. During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), it was submitted

SHRI VIJAY MAHIPAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54F is justified in the year the stipulated time period for purchase of new house or construction of new house expires. Considering the above facts I hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption U/S 54F to the extent of investment of Rs. 3,50,000/- made for purchase of land for the purpose of construction of residential house

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

disallowing the deduction u/s 54 or 54F. 6. In view of my above decision, the assessment order passed u/s 153A / 143(3) dated 30/12/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 is set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to the extent of examining the allowability of deduction u/s 54 and 54F keeping in view the directions given

SMT. NILANJANA CHAKRABORTI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

54F for claiming the benefit under this section. Hence the benefit u/s -54F is disallowed. Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(C) is initiated

ACIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JITENDRA SETH, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/S. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Ajhs 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed In Case No. 749/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2014-15/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Commission Paid Of ₹51,56,694/- As Well As Partly Restricting Section 54F Deduction Disallowance To ₹42,39,181/- Out Of ₹56,52,242/-; Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

disallowing assessee’s commission paid of ₹51,56,694/- as well as partly restricting section 54F deduction disallowance to ₹42,39,181/- out of ₹56,52,242/-; respectively

ARUNAVA BHATTACHARJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.203/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arunava Bhattacharjee…………………………………..........….…… Appellant P 190/1, Bidhan Nagar Road, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700067. [Pan: Aeipb7392A] Vs. Acit, Circle-9(2), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 09, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.02.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Pcit Observed From The Assessment Records That The Assessee Had Sold A Guest House, Located At Ganganagar On 20.02.2016 At Rs.4,50,00,000/- Which Was Acquired On 01.12.2007. The Assessee Computed Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.2,00,26,945/- From The Sale Of The Aforementioned Property & Out Of The Said Capital Gain, The Assessee Had Claimed A Deduction Of Rs.1,17,03,326/- U/S.54Ec In Itr. But In Its Revised Computation The Assessee Had

Section 54F, deduction u/s. 54F is not allowable if the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset. He therefore observed that the assessee owned more than one residential house, other than the new asset on the date of transfer (20.02.2016) of the original asset, hence

PRASHANT SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

disallowed by the AO only on this ground that he mentioned the wrong Section 54F of the Act. We further

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

disallowance of deduction u/s 54 amounting to Rs. 1,06,07,936/-made by AO is confirmed and these grounds are dismissed.” 05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that assessee has sold his old property on 03.06.2016, whereas the agreement to purchase for the new property was rendered into

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,C(C)-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury, Jm ]

disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 54 and 54F of the Act while passing order 263/154/153A/143

DILIP LOYALKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 1ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80QQB of the Act and accordingly, assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80QQB of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 11. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is, whether the assessee can be treated as owner of the property in the absence of probate of the will and consequently, notional rental income

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 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 In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee explained I.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta before the ld. CIT(A) that there was no dispute that agreement of transfer of the residential

SRI BABLU SUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 54F of the Act are very clear in this regard as rightly pointed out by the ld DR. Hence the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act is dismissed. However, we find from the personal balance sheet of the assessee, that lot of amounts have been spent on the subject mentioned property out of housing loan and interest