SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

property upto time limit specified u/s 139(4) of the Act i.e 31.3.2007 and the assessee had invested a sum of Rs. 35,48,000/- on or before the said date and accordingly eligible for exemption u/s 54(2) of the Act. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the order of reassessment did not suffer from any mistake warranting any rectification

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 was wholly incorrect. However on perusal of the return of income filed by assessee, which had been accepted by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act, it would be seen that the following amounts of interest on borrowed funds were claimed: (i) in respect of property let out Rs.1,35,428 (ii) in respect

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

house property. the explanation forwarded is that the addition made in the assessment was not lawful because the assessee followed cash basis accounting, It was stated that the assessee would be filing a petition for rectification u/s 154

MEENA CHANDRA . ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(4)/KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Meena Chandra Income-Tax Officer, Ward- Ee85/7, Sector Ii, Konark 29(4), Kolkata. Vs. Cooperative, Salt Lake, West Bengal-700091. (Pan: Aespc6072J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification, assessee claimed index cost of acquisition and cost of improvement as deduction from sale consideration to arrive at the correct amount of long term capital gain on sale of property. To substantiate her claim, documentary evidences which included registered sale deed of the property sold, registered purchased deed for evidencing the purchase of the property as well as copy

ALOK GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD.28(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. He thus, directed the Ld. AO to rectify the said mistake by invoking the provisions of section 154 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Ld. Sr. DR. pointed the fact that assessee suo moto computed long term capital gain arising from sale of two properties without 4 Alok Ghosh

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

u/s 154 of the Act was passed on 11 July 2022 without providing for credit of foreign taxes. Subsequently, another rectification order was passed on 08 August 2022 again without providing the claim of foreign taxes. Additionally, the loss from house property

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

rectification order no TDS was allowed for an unknown reason. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the view that the exemption was originally allowed u/s 54F and therefore the assessment is to be rectified when no exemption u/s 54F was claimed or allowed. 7. For that the order is otherwise bad in law since two opinions

ASP FINCORP,PARK STREET , KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2062/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Rectification Order dated 04.03.2024 passed u/s. 154 of the Act. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Under the facts and circumstance of the case the L.D CIT APPEAL was wrong in computing the business income at Rs.6,25,327/- as against the business loss claimed by the assess of Rs.13,82,417 and thus erred in facts

TAPAN KUMAR CHATURVEDI ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 2305/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tapan Kumar Chaturvedi.................................…………………………................................Appellant C/O. K.R. Sriram & Co., 2H, Merlin Links, 166B, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata. [Pan: Ackpc 4886 E] Acit Cir - 28 Kolkata...................………………………………………………………..............Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariathat Road (South), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri K.R. Sriram, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 02, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 02, 2019 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 12, Kolkata Dated 25.06.2018 Passed Ex-Parte Whereby He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

rectification of the order passed u/s 143(3). In the said application, the assessee claimed deduction of interest of Rs. 2,32,250/- and also a deduction of Rs. 2 I.T.A. No. 2305/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tapan Kumar Chaturvedi 29,340/- u/s 80D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that there were mistakes in the order

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Property and other sources. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issue to initiate the proceedings u/s 143(3). The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.02.2006 by determining total income at Rs.26,16,24,330/- by making certain addition and disallowance. The assessee, for the year under consideration also claimed

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Property and other sources. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issue to initiate the proceedings u/s 143(3). The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.02.2006 by determining total income at Rs.26,16,24,330/- by making certain addition and disallowance. The assessee, for the year under consideration also claimed

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Property and other sources. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issue to initiate the proceedings u/s 143(3). The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.02.2006 by determining total income at Rs.26,16,24,330/- by making certain addition and disallowance. The assessee, for the year under consideration also claimed

BIWANATH LOHIA,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-48(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1289/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-2007) Biswanath Lohia, Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward-48 (3), 171/1, Jn Mukherjee Road, 3, Govt. Place(W) Salkia, Howrah-6, Kolkata-700001 C/O: Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19-D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata-700007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaehb 6352 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nirmal Kaushik, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghyas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata, In Appeal No.15/Cit(A)-14Wd-47(3)/2011-12, Dated 28.04.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3)/154 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 8.11.2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,05,810/-. Asessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Various Additions. Later On, The Assessing Officer Passed The Rectification Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Observing That Deduction U/S 24(A) Of The I.T. Act Was Wrongly Allowed To The Assessee. Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Is Not Owner Of Any House Property & An Amount Received By The Assessee

rectification order Under Section 154 of the Act observing that deduction U/s 24(a) of the I.T. Act was wrongly allowed to the assessee. Assessing officer observed that the assessee is not owner of any house property

M/S. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Principal Commissioner Of M/S Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Income Tax, Central-I, Irc House, 1, Sunyat Sen Street, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Kolkata-700012. Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci 7333 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

House; 1, Sunyat Sen Street, Kolkata- 700001. 5. Thereafter, the notice u/s.153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 was issued by the Department on 07.04.2015, asking the assessee to file correct return of its total income in respect of which the assessee was assessable for the assessment year 2009-10. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed

BHAIRABNALA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,KALNA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

154 of the Act before the ld. CIT(A), but failed to succeed as the ld. CIT(A) held that firstly the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for the alleged interest income, the issue which is pointed out is not apparent mistake subject to rectification and lastly directed the ld.AO that

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

rectification proceedins, as these documents were not available during the original assessment proceedings, the levy of penalty may not be justified. After considering the facts of the case as well as explanation and evidences produced by the assessee, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty U/s

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

rectification proceedins, as these documents were not available during the original assessment proceedings, the levy of penalty may not be justified. After considering the facts of the case as well as explanation and evidences produced by the assessee, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty U/s

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

rectification proceedins, as these documents were not available during the original assessment proceedings, the levy of penalty may not be justified. After considering the facts of the case as well as explanation and evidences produced by the assessee, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty U/s