DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

Properties (supra). As per the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, construction of even one building with several residential units of the prescribed size would constitute a 'housing project' for the purposes of s. 80-IB(10) of the Act. 30. From the aforesaid discussion, it can be inferred that in order to understand the meaning of the expression 'housing project

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

house property”. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee for business loss was disallowed by him and after allowing standard deduction

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

house property”. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee for business loss was disallowed by him and after allowing standard deduction

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

house property”. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee for business loss was disallowed by him and after allowing standard deduction

SMT TARAMONI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

house property’ for letting out 350 sq.ft. of terrace space and disallowing deductions claimed u/s 24 of the I.T. Act on such

SRI PRADEEP SINGH GURUNG,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

house property in the assessment year under consideration (AY 2011-12 only) and thereafter, he disallowed Rs.22,19,177/- (Rs.35

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

house property” and the business loss of Rs.30,34,296/- shown by the assessee by claiming the expenses under various heads was disallowed

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 u/s. 22 to 27 and depreciation u/s. 32 cannot be allowed on the same. 12. Now, we take up the disallowance

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 u/s. 22 to 27 and depreciation u/s. 32 cannot be allowed on the same. 12. Now, we take up the disallowance

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 u/s. 22 to 27 and depreciation u/s. 32 cannot be allowed on the same. 12. Now, we take up the disallowance

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 u/s. 22 to 27 and depreciation u/s. 32 cannot be allowed on the same. 12. Now, we take up the disallowance

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

house property at Rs.8,17,358/- was denied and similarly deduction under section 80TTA was also disallowed for want of evidence

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) ..

Property". The ld AO also noted that the proviso (a)(i) of section 54F(1) stipulates that exemption 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.” In the light of the above provisions of the Act, the ld AO held

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. But CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.2.18 cr. (being interest on Rs.35 cr. ). The CIT(A) in AY 2008-09 noted

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. But CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.2.18 cr. (being interest on Rs.35 cr. ). The CIT(A) in AY 2008-09 noted

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. But CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.2.18 cr. (being interest on Rs.35 cr. ). The CIT(A) in AY 2008-09 noted

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. But CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.2.18 cr. (being interest on Rs.35 cr. ). The CIT(A) in AY 2008-09 noted

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

house property, therefore, the assessee is not Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty ITA No.400/Kol/2016 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed