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

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) ..

10,500 × 46,73,582 ÷ 47,42,255) and taxable Long Term Capital Gains worked out to Rs. 26,62,317/- (Rs. 47,42,255/- - Rs. 20,79,938/-). We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed here in above are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in directing the AO to sustain

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. On appeal the Tribunal found that the tenant was in the occupation of the said flat since 1967 and was therefore protected under the West Bengal Premises Act, 1956. The bonafide of the tenancy was not in doubt and therefore the tenancy could not be disregarded or held to be sham. The Tribunal thus held

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. On appeal the Tribunal found that the tenant was in the occupation of the said flat since 1967 and was therefore protected under the West Bengal Premises Act, 1956. The bonafide of the tenancy was not in doubt and therefore the tenancy could not be disregarded or held to be sham. The Tribunal thus held

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. On appeal the Tribunal found that the tenant was in the occupation of the said flat since 1967 and was therefore protected under the West Bengal Premises Act, 1956. The bonafide of the tenancy was not in doubt and therefore the tenancy could not be disregarded or held to be sham. The Tribunal thus held

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

46,99,380/- for the usage of the property. In addition as per the clause of the agreement, Reliance Industries Limited is required to pay license fee of Rs.6,35,400/- per month and it has to be paid in advance before 7th day of a month. Further it is mentioned that the license fee shall include all present

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

46,99,380/- for the usage of the property. In addition as per the clause of the agreement, Reliance Industries Limited is required to pay license fee of Rs.6,35,400/- per month and it has to be paid in advance before 7th day of a month. Further it is mentioned that the license fee shall include all present

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

46,99,380/- for the usage of the property. In addition as per the clause of the agreement, Reliance Industries Limited is required to pay license fee of Rs.6,35,400/- per month and it has to be paid in advance before 7th day of a month. Further it is mentioned that the license fee shall include all present

HARIT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Section 2(1A)(c), Agriculture Income includes any income derived from the building owned & occupied by the receiver of the rent or revenue of any such land provided that the building is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land and is used as a dwelling house or as a store house of the agriculture produce. 4. That

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]

46 Volume – II. As per approval, commencement of Industrial park was to happen before 31.3.06 but the same was delayed by more than one year or less from 31.3.2006, hence, fresh approval was required. Accordingly, since the assessee was covered under non automatic route of Industrial Park Scheme 2002, it filed IPS-II dt. 01.01.08 as on 01.07.07 given

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]

46 Volume – II. As per approval, commencement of Industrial park was to happen before 31.3.06 but the same was delayed by more than one year or less from 31.3.2006, hence, fresh approval was required. Accordingly, since the assessee was covered under non automatic route of Industrial Park Scheme 2002, it filed IPS-II dt. 01.01.08 as on 01.07.07 given

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]

46 Volume – II. As per approval, commencement of Industrial park was to happen before 31.3.06 but the same was delayed by more than one year or less from 31.3.2006, hence, fresh approval was required. Accordingly, since the assessee was covered under non automatic route of Industrial Park Scheme 2002, it filed IPS-II dt. 01.01.08 as on 01.07.07 given

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]

46 Volume – II. As per approval, commencement of Industrial park was to happen before 31.3.06 but the same was delayed by more than one year or less from 31.3.2006, hence, fresh approval was required. Accordingly, since the assessee was covered under non automatic route of Industrial Park Scheme 2002, it filed IPS-II dt. 01.01.08 as on 01.07.07 given

JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

46,813/- at the beginning of the year and Rs. 16,11,87,956/- at the end of the year. It has also been found from Para-VI of accounting policies and notes on accounts that capital work in progress was for Panvel Project and in Part-VII, it was stated that secured loan was taken for Panvel Project

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue(in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

46,320/- without considering the provision of Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the tribunal's own order in the case of NTS (P) Ltd. for the Assessment year M/s. National Engineering Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ITA Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 2004-2005 and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue(in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

46,320/- without considering the provision of Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the tribunal's own order in the case of NTS (P) Ltd. for the Assessment year M/s. National Engineering Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ITA Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 2004-2005 and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

46,903/-. During the Previous year ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. corresponding to the AY 2016-17, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the assessee had derived income from rent amounting to ₹9,48,000/-, therefore, the rental income ought to have been considered under "Income from House property

D.C.I.T CIR - 56,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. SMT. SARITA ARORA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. For convenience, the grounds of appeal are reproduced as hereunder:- I.T.A. No. 118/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 11 (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata, erred in fact by not sustaining the enhancement in rental income from