INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1416/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Industrial Investment Bank Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Kolkata, Of India Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 19, Netaji Subhas Road, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci 0324 D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya,Fca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.K.Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: ` The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2004-2005, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.343/08-09/Cit(A)-Vi/Cir-6/Kol, Dated 29.04.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 17.11.2006. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Public Sector Undertaking Bank & Its Operations Are Solely In The Segment Of Non-Banking Financial Intermediation Services. The Assessee Being A Financial Institution, Its Activities Are Subject To Guidelines Issued By The Reserve Bank Of India For Banking Companies. During The Financial Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Company Written Off A Sum Of Rs.1,42,48,266/- On Account Of Debts As Irrecoverable. The Assessee Is An Organization To Which The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Viia) Is Applicable.

carried forward (CF) losses should be adjusted. The Ld. AR for the assessee also submitted that sub-proviso of clause ( c) of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, gives an option to the assessee that assessee may claim in two consecutive assessment years commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2003 and ending before

M/S ERNST & YOUNG LLP,KOLKATA vs. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 499/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kol-3, Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabce 9188 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.N.Bajoria, Sr.Advocate Shri D.Ghosh, Fca For The Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2015 Of Cit- Kol-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act.).

Carry Forward (Rs. 7,57,84,993) 3. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act wherein the AO allowed deduction u/s 10A and 10AA of the Act without set off of loss of taxable unit. It can be seen from the aforesaid computation that out of the 4 units of the Assessee, two units whose income

FALCON VINCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PR.CIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Falcon Vincon Private Limited Vs. Pr. Cit-3, Kolkata 102, Tower No.12, Shriram Sameeksha, New Gangamma Gudi Police Station Road, Naidu Layout, Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf3203C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue “unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law”. 10. Taking note of the aforesaid dictum

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

loss. The AO’s allegation is in this regard was therefore wrong as well. In view of the above discussions and findings and in totality of the facts & circumstances of the case, I hold that the AO had erred in assessing the bank interest under the head “other sources” instead of “Business Income”. In my considered view, the bank interest

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

loss. The AO’s allegation is in this regard was therefore wrong as well. In view of the above discussions and findings and in totality of the facts & circumstances of the case, I hold that the AO had erred in assessing the bank interest under the head “other sources” instead of “Business Income”. In my considered view, the bank interest

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

loss. The AO’s allegation is in this regard was therefore wrong as well. In view of the above discussions and findings and in totality of the facts & circumstances of the case, I hold that the AO had erred in assessing the bank interest under the head “other sources” instead of “Business Income”. In my considered view, the bank interest

BIP DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

carried out by the assessee-company. He, therefore, held that the entire rental income received by the assessee was chargeable to tax under the head “income from house property” and the business loss of Rs.30,34,296/- shown by the assessee by claiming the expenses under various heads was disallowed by him. He also disallowed the claim of the assessee

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-21, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.857/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukesh Kr. Agarwal Vs. P.C.I.T – 21, Kolkata 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 116/1, Girish Ghosh Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata – Liluah, Howrah-711204. 700014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapa 7519D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Respondent By :Md. Usman, Cit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 03.03.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Lncome Tax - 21, Kolkata Under Section 263 Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 27Th March, 2015 Passed By The Lncome Tax Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Is Without Jurisdiction, Against Law & Facts Of The Case & Therefore Illegal & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

House Property, the details of all bank accounts to show the amounts of interest received and paid and also the details of losses carried forward

METSIL EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT CEN.-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

losses amounting to Rs. 14,94,53,474/- in light of the provisions of Section 79 of the Act, considering that in the case of the assessee there was a change of shareholding by more than 51% and thereby the provisions of Section 79 of the Act were attracted. The ld. Pr. CIT also found that

BENGAL STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 11(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

house property / rental income and carries out investment business. The assessee had filed its original return on 26.09.2012 declaring total income at ₹501,410/-. The same stood summarily processed on 08.05.2013 by CPC. ITA No.699/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 Bengal Steel Industries. Ltd. Vs ITO Wd-11(3), Kol. Page 2 The assessing authority thereafter formed reasons to believe that

PIYUSH MOHAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

carried forward losses of Long Term Capital Loss pertaining to AY 2004-05 of Rs. 2,60,519/- and AY 2005-06 of Rs. 1,88,859/- total Rs. 4,49,378/- is given; and housing loan interest for AY 2006-07 of Rs. 26,664/- and AY 2006-07 of Rs. 3,94,264. Total

ARUS PROPERTIES LLP,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., EXEMPT - 1, CIRCLE - 1(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 533/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Arus Properties Llp,………………………..….…Appellant 7B, Pretoria Street, ‘Alom House’, Kolkata-700071 [Pan:Abcfa4787H] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Exempt-1, Circle-1(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

loss is not permissible if return of income is not filed within due date. Therefore, he pleaded to confirm the orders of both the revenue authorities. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is a 3 Arus Properties LLP Limited Liability Partnership

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

loss from house property which was carried forward has also been denied. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee

PARVESH SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1388/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Parvesh Sharma,……………………………...……Appellant 106, B.T. Road, Rajbari, Bonhooghly, Kolkata-700108, West Bengal [Pan:Bmpps3173Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, W.B.

house property”. Therefore, he estimated the rent at Rs.25,000/- x 12 i.e. amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- for the period of 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. However, the ld. Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee for an amount of Rs.12,22,124/- of interest loss is declined and the said amount could not be carried forward

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

carried forward under this section for more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed. [Explanation-Where any part of the business of a company other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads "Interest on securities", "Income from house property

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

carrying out all rectification was that the income of the Assessee stood increased by Rs.19,58,731.46 Ps. The revised profit and loss account so filed by the Assessee is given as an annexure-2 to this order. 2 3 Sri Gautam Kumar Mitra A.Yr.2006-07 6. The AO accepted the said reconciliation and added a sum of Rs.19

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

loss of ₹31,41,251/- under the head “business and profession” which was set off against the income from house property / other sources. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, AO observed that the expense claimed under the head business and profession are not eligible for deduction in view of that assessee carried no business activity in the year under

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

loss of ₹31,41,251/- under the head “business and profession” which was set off against the income from house property / other sources. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, AO observed that the expense claimed under the head business and profession are not eligible for deduction in view of that assessee carried no business activity in the year under