ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house was being shown in the balance sheet of previous\nyear and he was not having two residential properties, but only some\naddition was done to the existing property. The Ld. AO has not\nmentioned the details of the property and the contention of the\nassessee is verified from the details filed before us. This fact could\nnot be rebutted

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

15. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Before adverting to the main issue, let us first deal with the submission of the ld. Sr. D.R. We have taken note of the order passed by the ld. Commissioner under section 263. A perusal of section 263 would indicate that it authorizes the ld. Commissioner

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

15,400/- (3) Property Rent Received NIL treated as self-occupied Less: HBL Rs.70,000/- Loss Rs.70,000/- 7. We further noticed that the ld. Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee is not permitted to adjust the house property loss except for the self-occupied property against other income. Provision of section 71 of the Act has a direct

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

10. However, Section 23(1)(c) of the Act provides the mechanism for computing the ALV of the property which are meant to be let out but are vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year then the vacancy allowance is to be given to the assessee. It provides that if the actual rent received or receivable

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

10. Before us, Ld. CIT, DR on this issue asserted that finding of the Ld. AO in respect of rental income declared by the assessee itself on this property under the head income from house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since

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

10. Before us, Ld. CIT, DR on this issue asserted that finding of the Ld. AO in respect of rental income declared by the assessee itself on this property under the head income from house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since

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

10. Before us, Ld. CIT, DR on this issue asserted that finding of the Ld. AO in respect of rental income declared by the assessee itself on this property under the head income from house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since

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

10. Before us, Ld. CIT, DR on this issue asserted that finding of the Ld. AO in respect of rental income declared by the assessee itself on this property under the head income from house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since

SMT. PRIYANKA GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(IT)-CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

15 4 I.T.A. No.2619/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Smt. Priyanka Ganguly which are related to argument and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: “v. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 24(b) of the ' Act amounting to INR 11,77,507, 30% standard deduction claimed under section 24(a), and proposition made to make Incorrect addition of coowner

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

10. Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted this addition by recording the following finding:- “4.2, This is also a recurring issue in the appellant’s case. In the appellate order dated 20.06.2014 for the A,Y 2007-08, ld., CIT(A)-XXXII, Kolkata

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

10. Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted this addition by recording the following finding:- “4.2, This is also a recurring issue in the appellant’s case. In the appellate order dated 20.06.2014 for the A,Y 2007-08, ld., CIT(A)-XXXII, Kolkata

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

10. Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted this addition by recording the following finding:- “4.2, This is also a recurring issue in the appellant’s case. In the appellate order dated 20.06.2014 for the A,Y 2007-08, ld., CIT(A)-XXXII, Kolkata

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

10. Before us, Ld. CIT, DR on this issue asserted that finding of the Ld. AO in respect of rental income declared by the assessee itself on this property under the head income from house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

housing or real estate land and property authorities. authorities. 24 Capital Investment Leasehold properties Purchasing a freehold may require less initial property requires a capital investment larger upfront capital compared to investment. purchasing a freehold property. 25 Flexibility Leasehold properties Freehold properties offer less flexibility as provide more flexibility the lessee is bound by as the owner has the terms

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54.\n13. In view of the above we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for the\namount invested in the purchase of a new asset amounting to Rs. 62,10,000 and the AO\nis directed to grant the same.\n14. The order of the Id. CIT(A) is therefore set aside and the appeal

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

house property which was carried forward has also been denied. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of not granting tax credit in respect of taxes withheld on the foreign income earned by the assessee and credit claimed in accordance with section

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

house property within the stipulated time limit as set out in Section 54 of the Act and thus substantively complied with the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 15. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 5,99,150/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS

JASPAL SINGH BINDRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed and the Ld

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

house property and profit in share. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 139(1) on 31.10.2022 declaring total income of ₹6,76,96,410/-. The assessee is an Individual and a Resident of India and regularly assessed to tax. During the year under consideration, he earned Pension from Standard Chartered Pension (SCD) Overseas, UK of Rs.1