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) ..

exemptions, is chargeable to tax. Section 14 of the Act enumerates five heads of income for the purpose of charge of income tax and computation of total income. These are: Salaries, Income from house property

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

exemption of profits derived from developing and building of a housing project, subject to the conditions prescribed therein. Notably, the expression 'housing project' has not been defined in s. 80-IB(10) of the Act, a situation that has also been noted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vandana Properties

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property\nwas not directly met from the proceeds derived from sale of shares\nand therefore on this score also, the assessee was not entitled to\nbenefit of exemption

E M C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act of 1961. 22. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that rental income declared by the assessee deserves to be assessed as an income from house property

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.”

house property, he cannot be denied rightful exemption on an investment made on the second house property. The assessee claims

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) ..

house properties, one at Lavasa and the other at Mumbai which was acquired on 19.11.2012 hereinafter called the New Asset. Since this property was acquired within one year before the date of sale of original asset, therefore the assessee is fully eligible for exemption

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 within stipulated time frame so the said sum of Rs.22,19,177/- was added to assessee’s income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who restricted the deduction u/s. 54 of the Act to the extent of Rs.16,97,479/- (Rs.13,61,727/- + Rs.3,35,752/-) out of the total claim of Rs.35

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, 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)

exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that in order to avail the benefitu/s 54 of the Act, the assessee being individual must have to fulfil the following conditions: (i) The assets are in question must be the residential house property

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)

exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that in order to avail the benefitu/s 54 of the Act, the assessee being individual must have to fulfil the following conditions: (i) The assets are in question must be the residential house property

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

exempt from income tax or was taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961”? In the impugned assessment years, the appellant received rent and service charges from M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd, a Corporate member of the club, for use of club premises. The same was held taxable under the head “income from “house property

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

exempt from income tax or was taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961”? In the impugned assessment years, the appellant received rent and service charges from M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd, a Corporate member of the club, for use of club premises. The same was held taxable under the head “income from “house property

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

exempt from income tax or was taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961”? In the impugned assessment years, the appellant received rent and service charges from M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd, a Corporate member of the club, for use of club premises. The same was held taxable under the head “income from “house property

M/S MORGAN WALKER & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

house property income and investment activity. The AO found that no transaction took place in earning exempt income on brought

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]

exemption u/s 80IA(4)(iii) as held by different Judicial Authorities and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm consists of four partners i.e. all four companies. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of Special Economic Zone

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]

exemption u/s 80IA(4)(iii) as held by different Judicial Authorities and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm consists of four partners i.e. all four companies. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of Special Economic Zone

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]

exemption u/s 80IA(4)(iii) as held by different Judicial Authorities and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm consists of four partners i.e. all four companies. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of Special Economic Zone

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]

exemption u/s 80IA(4)(iii) as held by different Judicial Authorities and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm consists of four partners i.e. all four companies. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of Special Economic Zone

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

exempt dividend income of ₹4,69,052/- derived in the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer appears to have computed the impugned disallowance in the nature of direct expenses, proportionate interest and administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(1)(i) to (iii) involving sums of ₹16,257/- paid towards security transaction tax, ₹11,17,790/- and ₹2,17,750/-; respectively totalling