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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10,000\n5,46,52,500\n4.1. The Id. AO further noted that the assessee made payment of\n₹2,80,70,000/- to Bangalore NRI Complex Ltd. (Urbana Township) for\npurchase of land for construction of residential house at 783,\nAnandapur, Kolkata-700107 which was claimed by the assessee as\ninvestment for construction of residential house eligible for deduction

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

house property, which was also accepted in the assessment, meaning thereby that there was no deprecation claimed on the block of assets and also not found in the books of accounts and no deprecation was claimed or allowed in the assessments. The ld. AO computed the Long-Term Capital Gain, however, the valuation report filed by the assessee

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATQ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

section 43(5) but it is to be taxed as profit on sale of right as income of the assessee. Thus Ground No. 6 to 8 are dismissed.” 2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has shown the rental income under the head house property and claimed standard deduction

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

10. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that in this case, the assessee has constructed the house property over a period of time commencing from FY 2014-15 to 2015-16 and year wise expenses were furnished before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer after considering the expenses

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

10. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that in this case, the assessee has constructed the house property over a period of time commencing from FY 2014-15 to 2015-16 and year wise expenses were furnished before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer after considering the expenses

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

10. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that in this case, the assessee has constructed the house property over a period of time commencing from FY 2014-15 to 2015-16 and year wise expenses were furnished before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer after considering the expenses

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

10. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that in this case, the assessee has constructed the house property over a period of time commencing from FY 2014-15 to 2015-16 and year wise expenses were furnished before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer after considering the expenses

KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

46,000/- made by adjustment in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act by the CPC, Bangalore. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that against the adjustment, the assessee has filed written submission before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority and such written submission has been briefly

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

46,000/-, which is\ndisallowed as per provision of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act and\nadded back to the book profit for computation of book profit u/s. 115JB.”\n8.3 Regarding this issue, the Ld. AR has submitted as under:\n“1) As per Circular No. 55011-01-2009-CAPM issued by the Ministry of Coal\n(Page

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

10,000/- as loan from the said subsidiary company. The above fact also corroborated from the Clause No.31(a) of the tax audit report of the assessee company where loan from subsidiary had been duly disclosed. The Assessing Officer applied the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and treated the said loan as deemed dividend and made

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Housing Development Corporation Ltd. reported\nin 343 ITR 316, the assessment is liable to be annulled.\n6. In these circumstances, as notice_u/s.143(2) has not been\nissued in respect of the valid revised return filed by the\nassessee_u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014, the consequential Assessment\nOrder_u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2014 for the AY 2012-13, in the case

S.K.DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 S. K. Development Private Deputycommissioner Of Limited. Income-Tax,Circle- 5(1), Vs. 23A, N. S. Road, 10Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aadcs7398K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

46,117/- relating to repairs and maintenance as it is in respect of house property income. 3 S.K. Development Private Limited AY: 2013-14 For the other component of Rs.3,65,700/-, Ld. Counsel referred to the details of its dealings in immovable properties during the year for which brokerage expenses were incurred. The details are tabulated as under: Brokerage

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

property was rented with effect from 01/04/2013 and is in Noida and was being used as a transit house/guesthouse for business purposes. Our attention was drawn to pages 36 to 46 of the paper book filed before us. Pages 36 to 37 contain the ledger account of Smt. Vandana Sehgal and on page 36 on 20/08/2014, a sum of Page

DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN COAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

property was rented with effect from 01/04/2013 and is in Noida and was being used as a transit house/guesthouse for business purposes. Our attention was drawn to pages 36 to 46 of the paper book filed before us. Pages 36 to 37 contain the ledger account of Smt. Vandana Sehgal and on page 36 on 20/08/2014, a sum of Page

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

property was rented with effect from 01/04/2013 and is in Noida and was being used as a transit house/guesthouse for business purposes. Our attention was drawn to pages 36 to 46 of the paper book filed before us. Pages 36 to 37 contain the ledger account of Smt. Vandana Sehgal and on page 36 on 20/08/2014, a sum of Page

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

46,25,681/-. The market value was disputed by the assessee and therefore, the case was referred to Departmental Valuation Officer (‘DVO’). The DVO however estimated the market value of the property at Rs.2,22,38,588/-. The Assessing Officer thus added Rs.7,38,588/- invoking provisions of section