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 let to its members and their guests is not chargeable to tax. ” Cricket Club of India: Whether the income from the property held by the assessee could not be brought charge under the provisions of Sec. 22 to 26 of the Act. India Motion Pictures Association (180 ITR 160): “Whether the principle of mutuality is applicable

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 let to its members and their guests is not chargeable to tax. ” Cricket Club of India: Whether the income from the property held by the assessee could not be brought charge under the provisions of Sec. 22 to 26 of the Act. India Motion Pictures Association (180 ITR 160): “Whether the principle of mutuality is applicable

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 let to its members and their guests is not chargeable to tax. ” Cricket Club of India: Whether the income from the property held by the assessee could not be brought charge under the provisions of Sec. 22 to 26 of the Act. India Motion Pictures Association (180 ITR 160): “Whether the principle of mutuality is applicable

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

penalty on the Assessee u/s.271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3. The Assessee is an Advocate by profession. During the previous year his sources of income was income from profession, income under the head “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.”

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(C) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.1. On appeal, the ld. First Appellate Authority confirmed the denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee earned long term capital gain on sale of two plots of land. The total long term capital gain

M/S. SORMISTHA BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,ASANSOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.144/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) M/S Sormistha Builders & Vs. Acit/Circle-1/Asansol-713304 Construction (P) Limited, Senreleigh Road, West Apcar Gardens, Asansol-4, Dist-Burdwan-713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics 8345 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.N.Ram, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabal Choudhury, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol, In Appeal No.234/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-1/Asl/11-12, Dated 01.12.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 11.03.2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 12.01.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18,63,098/-. Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Various Additions. M/S Sormistha Builders & Construction (P) Ltd.

house property and income from business. The assessee cannot claim the penalty expenditure under the head income from house property

PARAKH KOTHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14

House Property Income and has no relation or nexus for the purpose of earning interest income. Therefore, it was felt that the electricity expenses claimed by the assessee under the head 'other sources' of Rs.6,05,789/- had not been expended wholly and exclusively for earning interest income and therefore, the same was not allowable as a deductible expense u/s.57

DR. KALYAN CHAUDHURI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-19(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

house properties and did not disclose the notional rental income of Rs.31,020/- on one of such property as required u/s. 23(4)(b) of the Act and the interest income of Rs.62,097/- i.e income from other sources in the original return. Thus, for non disclosure of the same the AO initiated penalty

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO - OP SOCIETY LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 33,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09 Central Bank Of India Employees -Versus- D.C.I.T., Circle-33, Co-Operative Society Ltd.Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaaac3869N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed on the Assessee by the AO are as follows: The Assessee is a Co-operative Society having income, amongst others, from House Properties

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

penalty and therefore, disallowable u/s 37(1) of the Act and secondly, the said amount is not of revenue in nature but a capital expense. Ld. AO also made disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 38,98,013/-, disallowance of advance written off of Rs. 4,41,000/-, treating of house property

OBEROI BUILDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House Property” and subsequently the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of various expenses was restricted by him determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,43,020/-. He also initiated penalty

SUGAM REALTY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

House Property as per the provisions of Section 23(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ld. CIT(A), Income Tax Department, NFAC erred in law as well in facts in confirming the said addition in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no such Addition was at all called

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SDV INTERNATION LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

property loss resulting from the deduction on account of interest on housing loan while making deduction of tax at source from the payment of salary to some employees who had also claimed exemption on account of house rent allowance u/s 10 for payment made on account of rent was not accepted by the A.O. as the same according

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SDV INTERNATION LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

property loss resulting from the deduction on account of interest on housing loan while making deduction of tax at source from the payment of salary to some employees who had also claimed exemption on account of house rent allowance u/s 10 for payment made on account of rent was not accepted by the A.O. as the same according

SDV INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

property loss resulting from the deduction on account of interest on housing loan while making deduction of tax at source from the payment of salary to some employees who had also claimed exemption on account of house rent allowance u/s 10 for payment made on account of rent was not accepted by the A.O. as the same according

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

house property by the assessee. He also submits that the said property was sold during the A.Y 2010-11 by the assessee and the sale proceeds was transferred to fixed deposit by the assessee and thereafter, during the assessment year under consideration, the said amount was withdrawn from the fixed deposit and loan was given to the company namely

NIRAJ JALAN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-4(2), 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. 1925/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Niraj Jalan -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Acxpj 5139 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and income from other sources. In the penalty order, the ld AO notes that during the course of post

SHRI PANKAJ JALAN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-4(2), 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. 1923/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pankaj Jalan -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Actpj 8249 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and income from other sources. In the penalty order, the ld AO notes that during the course of post