SHRI BIMAL SINGH KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2013-14

house property income. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant argument as the sole issue before us is that of explanation of the impugned cash deposits

ASHOK VIKRAM PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

house property, capital gain and other sources. Accordingly, the assessee has called upon to explain the source of deposit. The assessee replied before the AO that the cash

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property purchased one year prior to the\ntransfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly\nmade the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that\nmight have been received for the transfer of the residential house which resulted in the\ncapital gain.\n23. At the cost

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

House property NIL Income from Business or profession 29,58,419.00 Income from capital gains NIL Income from other sources NIL Less: Deduction under Section 80P of the 29,58,419.00 Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income NIL 4. The return was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny system (CASS) The Learned come Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

House property NIL Income from Business or profession 29,58,419.00 Income from capital gains NIL Income from other sources NIL Less: Deduction under Section 80P of the 29,58,419.00 Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income NIL 4. The return was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny system (CASS) The Learned come Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

property and also made addition of Rs.67,33,100/- towards cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee whereas the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that the Assessing Officer has added lesser amount by deducting the total cash expenditure shown by the assessee on the construction of the house

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

property and also made addition of Rs.67,33,100/- towards cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee whereas the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that the Assessing Officer has added lesser amount by deducting the total cash expenditure shown by the assessee on the construction of the house

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

property and also made addition of Rs.67,33,100/- towards cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee whereas the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that the Assessing Officer has added lesser amount by deducting the total cash expenditure shown by the assessee on the construction of the house

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

property and also made addition of Rs.67,33,100/- towards cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee whereas the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that the Assessing Officer has added lesser amount by deducting the total cash expenditure shown by the assessee on the construction of the house

COASTAL FERTILISERS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-15(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

properties. So far as this fact of withdrawing of cash is concerned the same has not been disputed by the Revenue authorities at any stage. The assessee’s claim is very simple that the source of cash deposit of Rs. 94,50,000/- is the cash withdrawn of Rs. 1,02,75,000/- on various dates during the year itself

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SATURDAY CLUB LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

deposit of cash prior to clearance of the cheques in assessee's favour. All these facts and documents considered cumulatively establish that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving creditworthiness of the share subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. In terms of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports

WILSON GIDLA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-63, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

house property and interest income as well. The AO noted that the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and reason for selection was mentioned as “large cash deposits

ANANT VEER JALAN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2175/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Anant Veer Jalan -Vs- Acit, Range-22, Kolkata [Pan: Afhpj 3711 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and 2 Anant Veer Jalan A.Yr.2011-12 deduction u/s 80C and 80CCF of the Act. The ld. AO during the course of assessment proceeding observed that the assessee had made cash deposits

KIRAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

house during the\nrelevant assessment year. The assessee is also having income from other\nsources being business in equities quoted and unquoted shares, mutual\nfunds etc. It was the submission that the return filed by the assessee came\nto be processed and the return came to be selected for scrutiny on account\nof the reason of large cash deposits

BIBHU PRASAD SAHOO,PURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 62(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

House Property amounting to ₹7,15,295/- and interest income of ₹37,638/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee requiring source of cash deposits