SMT. NILANJANA CHAKRABORTI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

house property, then he is eligible for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, even though the full value of consideration is more than the net sale consideration as a result of transfer. Deeming fiction as provided u/s. 50C of the Act in respect of the words full value of consideration is to be applied only to section

ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAGHU NANDAN MODI, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 23(1} afresh with reference to its rateable value as determined by the Municipal Corporation. The question was answered in the affirmative and the court held that the income from house property had to be computed on the basis of the sum for which the property might reasonably be let from year to year and the annual municipal value

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property, the assessee was not entitled to anything over and above the agreed rent. The said action of the AO has resulted in taxing notional income in the hands of the assessee, which never accrued and hence cannot be brought to tax. Accordingly, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and hence

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Aayakar V/S. Patton Developers Pvt. Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Ltd., 3C, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 016 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabct 2076 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 24(1)(vi) was extended by this circular. But this could not be extended to subsequent loans, as contended by the assessee.” In the instant case original loan was provided by M/s Patton International Ltd., (holding company) from time to time for the purpose of acquisition and construction of house property by its subsidiary company (Appellant). This

HALDIA RIVERSIDE ESTATES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

108 (Bom) that the issues do not find a mention in the notice cannot be reopened u/s 263 of the Act. In the present case the direction to reopen the assessment to examine whether the expenditure claimed against the infrastructure service receipt is allowed as deduction under the head “income from house property” did not form part of the notice

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 37(1) of the Act. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred by stating that the rent received from IBS Tower is income from House Property. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) is erred

KAUSHALYA DEALERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Kaushalya Dealers Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata Ltd. 498/H/4, Karl Mark Vs. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 023. Pan: Aadck8028Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr). Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 29.05.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit] Relevant To Ay 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised By Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act & Also The Consequent Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That Revisionary Jurisdiction As Well As The Consequent Order Is Invalid & Nullity As Necessary Conditions Envisaged In Section 263 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Before Invoking The Revisionary Jurisdiction. The Fact In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed A Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 69,040/- Which Was Processed U/S 2 Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd. 143(1) Of The Act. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Assessment Was Framed Vide Order Dated 05.09.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing The Income At Rs. 69,040/- After Taking Into Account The Various Contentions/Replies Of The Assessee Filed During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 4. In the previous year, the assessee had taken loan of Rs. 50 lakhs & 30 lakhs from two companies viz. Lily Vintrade (P) Ltd. and Mountview Dealmark (P) Ltd. But no verification was made”. 4. In reply to the show notice, the assessee filed written submissions alongwith details/evidences explaining that the issues

M/S. MANGILALL ESTATES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

108, Shantipalli, 42A, Shakespeare Kolkata-108 Sarani, Kolkata-17 [PAN No.AAECM 0821 C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

108\ndays. Considering the reasons to be bonafide and genuine, we are\ninclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n03. The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal is against the\napplicability of the provisions of Section 56(2)(X) of the Act by the Id.\nAO which was upheld

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITMAN COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

108, PC Tiljala. 3. The orders of authorities below, the paperbook filed by the appellant and the arguments of ld. DR/AR have been carefully considered. The moot points here are the following: a) Whether there could be any revenue for the year under consideration from a JDA the terms of which admittedly were not fulfilled

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA 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 : 2005-06

108 (d) Upfront fees paid to ICICI Bank Rs.40,677,996 The first aspect which the AO noticed was that the aforesaid claim for total sum of Rs.13,01,74,691/-was not routed through profit & loss account nor claimed as deduction out of profit, but claimed as deduction in the revised computation of income filed with revised return

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHIANA AMAR DEVELOPERS, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

108 TTJ (Chennai) 71, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s plea that deduction under section 80IB(10) on the residential units constructed by the assessee be given on pro rate basis. 7.4 In the case of DCIT vs Brigade Enterprise 119 TTJ 269 Bangalore Bench of ITAT has observed in respect of claim under section 80IB

M/S DHARA DEALERS PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-13(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

house property the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to various parties from whom such advances were taken by the assessee company and the replies received were accepted by the AO, which shows non- application of mind 3 I.T.A. No. 523/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Dhara Dealers Pvt. Ltd. d) The AO failed to establish

RAVI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

108/- for the land and Rs. 70,62,750/- for the structure. The Ld. PCIT noted that Mr. Ravi Modi had shown full value of consideration of Rs. 45,62,83,506/- and cost of acquisition of Rs. 86,38,98,998/- in the ITR for the AY 2018-19 thereby declaring a Short-Term Capital Loss

SHILPI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

108/- for the land and Rs. 70,62,750/- for the structure. The Ld. PCIT noted that Mr. Ravi Modi had shown full value of consideration of Rs. 45,62,83,506/- and cost of acquisition of Rs. 86,38,98,998/- in the ITR for the AY 2018-19 thereby declaring a Short-Term Capital Loss

LALJI & SONS,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property & capital gains. The assessee filed its return on 22-09-03 showing a total income of Rs.1,96,808/-. Accordingly, the said return was processed by raising a demand of Rs.206/-. Subsequently, on an information regarding declaration of less value of the property by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO reopened the original assessment

ACIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JITENDRA SETH, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/S. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Ajhs 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed In Case No. 749/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2014-15/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Commission Paid Of ₹51,56,694/- As Well As Partly Restricting Section 54F Deduction Disallowance To ₹42,39,181/- Out Of ₹56,52,242/-; Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

property was determined at Rs.74,93,295. Thus the capital gains was determined at Rs.173,46,704/-. Out of this the assessee invested Rs.50,00,000 was deposited in bonds eligible u/s. 54FC of the IT act 1961 and the balance amount of capital gains of Rs.1,23,46,704 was liable for tax. Out of this amount the assessee

VINOD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains, income from other sources. Chapter V then brings income of other persons, which are to be included in the total income of an Assessee and this is contained in section 60 to 65 of the Act. Chapter-VI (containing sec. 66 to 80) then lays down provisions regarding aggregation