D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

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

10. However, it is seen that the appellant is providing common services and is charging for the same from the tenants. The power back-up is certainly not an income from House Property. It is held that service charges are not part of House Property Income and has to be treated separately. However, the charges of Rs.83,57,523/- should

M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

section 80IB(10)(d), the action of the A.O. for disallowing deduction of 80IB is upheld and the ground of appeal is dismissed.” 3. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. Only two grounds of appeal have been raised. The first is against the denial of the claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act and the second

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) ..

10. Taking note of the aforesaid dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, let us examine whether order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We note that the Assessing Officer himself was accepting the rental income under the head ‘house property’ in the past Assessment Years

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

house property for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. In the present case, the assessee had sold 4 depreciable assets/f1ats during the year belonging to the same Block of Assets - Building. The opening WDV of the said Block was Rs.1,33,21,798/-. The sale consideration received from these 4 properties was more than the Opening

M/S/ SINGHANIA MERLIN ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Properties (2012) has observed as under: 17. The first question to be considered herein is, whether, in the facts of the present case, construction of ‘E’ building constitutes building a ‘housing project’ under section 80IB(10) of the Act. 18. The expression ‘housing project’ is neither defined under section 2 of the Act nor under section 80IB(10

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BENGAL GREENFIELD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 10(20) of the I.T.Act.” 3. The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in Real Estate business. During the previous year relevant to AY 2006-07 the Assessee derived income of Rs.1,85,03,189/- from construction of a housing project at New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata. The said housing project was jointly developed and built by the Assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

property or assets of the demerged company or any undertaking thereof by the resulting company; vi) The transfer of the undertaking is on a going concern basis. 29. Once demerger is sanctioned by the Hon’ble High court the enabling provision is section 72A of the Act, which allows carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

properties. The said firm subsequently obtained such loan/credit facilities to the extent ofRs.250 crores. 3.3. The said three companies transferred the said land to the said firm on January 9, 2006 at cost and such cost was the amount recorded in the books of account of the said firm for the year ended March 31, 2006 as the value

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

properties. The said firm subsequently obtained such loan/credit facilities to the extent ofRs.250 crores. 3.3. The said three companies transferred the said land to the said firm on January 9, 2006 at cost and such cost was the amount recorded in the books of account of the said firm for the year ended March 31, 2006 as the value

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

properties. The said firm subsequently obtained such loan/credit facilities to the extent ofRs.250 crores. 3.3. The said three companies transferred the said land to the said firm on January 9, 2006 at cost and such cost was the amount recorded in the books of account of the said firm for the year ended March 31, 2006 as the value

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3 and 4 relate to the Ld. CIT (A) erring in denying the deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not deposit the sale proceeds of his old property in Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988 and had kept the sale proceeds of his old property in his savings bank account and fixed deposits with

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

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

House property in Singapore is not taxable in India under DTAA while as per Article 25 of DTAA, it is taxable in India. 3 M/s UCO Bank 10. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 relates to addition

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

house property income ought to have been 2 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited assessed as a business income and he took action under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. After hearing the assessee, he passed an order under section 263 on 15.03.2019, copy of this order is available on pages no. 20 to 25 of the paper book

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

Section 23 of the Act. The appellant has further submitted that this particular issue had been dealt with by the Inspecting Appellate Commissioner (IAC) in its own case for AY 1978-79; copy of which was placed on record. In that year the AO had taxed the service charges received from tenants under the head “house property” along with

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

Section 23 of the Act. The appellant has further submitted that this particular issue had been dealt with by the Inspecting Appellate Commissioner (IAC) in its own case for AY 1978-79; copy of which was placed on record. In that year the AO had taxed the service charges received from tenants under the head “house property” along with

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

Section 23 of the Act. The appellant has further submitted that this particular issue had been dealt with by the Inspecting Appellate Commissioner (IAC) in its own case for AY 1978-79; copy of which was placed on record. In that year the AO had taxed the service charges received from tenants under the head “house property” along with

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)

10-09-2007 i.e., for a period of more than thirty-six months, the right enjoyed by the assessee over the period in question was in the nature of LTCS. Since the property acquired is LTCG i.e. right over the property in question enjoyed by the assessee, the sale of the said property the consideration was necessarily in the nature