PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house but not maintaining separate books of account as required u/s 11(4A) of the Act. Therefore, the exemption claimed by assessee with regard to GH income was denied by AO. However we find that the business is held under trust and it is not separate from the assessee. So the provisions of section 11(4A) are not applicable

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

section 24 (a) of rebate/ deduction of 30% is to be allowed from House Property Income”. 5. The issue relating to claim of the assessee for deduction on account of business expenses under various heads was decided by the ld. CIT(Appeal) vide paragraphs no. 13 to 18 of his impugned order, which read as under:- “13. The appellant

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

3 large scale construction of housing complexes within the State of West Bengal to solve the basic housing problems subject however to the supervision and overall control by the State Government of West Bengal. With this objective in mind the Government of West Bengal had transferred in favour of the Housing Board certain parcels of land and the said Board

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) ..

3) of the Act for the Assessment Years, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and the Assessing Officer had accepted that the rental income should be assessable under the head ‘house property’. We note that there is no any change in facts so far assessment year 2014-15. The ld PCIT took stand for the first time

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

Housing Project Pvt. Ltd. The said investment in Right to Property was a capital asset and was shown in the Audited Accounts as Investment in Right to Property' under the head 'Investments - Current and Non-current investments', refer Note II of the audited accounts. The investment in Right to Property was never considered as 'stock in trade' by the assessee

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

section 11(1) of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 with prospective effect from 01.04.2022. However, this explanation is clarificatory in nature as the set off of loss is allowed as per the provisions of Chapter VI, which relates to computation of loss under various heads e.g. house property, business loss, capital gains etc. while

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 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 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

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]

Housing (P) Limited made during the year were strategic in nature and hence, on the basis of various citations referred to by the assessee in its representation, could not be brought under the ambit of disallowance under Section 14A. The claim of the assessee appears authentic to some extent. As far as investments in Aryan Mining & 19 Padma Logistics & Khanij

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

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Section 80IB(10) was claimed only in respect of the completed units. The claim was rejected principally on the ground that both the housing projects sanctioned simultaneously together constituted a single composite housing project and therefore deduction was not permissible since completion certificate for the entire housing project was not obtained by 21 I.T.A No.1514/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 1515/Kol/2015 A.Ys

BIP DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

11 house property” in accordance with section 24 and also allow the business expenses claimed by the assessee under various heads after verifying the same in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ganga Properties Limited (supra). Grounds No. 2, 3

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

sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act of 1961. 22. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that rental income declared by the assessee deserves to be assessed as an income from house property. The finding of the ld. Assessing Officer that such income is to be assessed as a business income is vacated

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 11 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. 14. The assessee company had given a number of properties on rent in Kolkata, Mumbai and other places to M/s. KCT & Bros. Ltd., its sister concern. As noted by the A.O. during

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 11 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. 14. The assessee company had given a number of properties on rent in Kolkata, Mumbai and other places to M/s. KCT & Bros. Ltd., its sister concern. As noted by the A.O. during

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 11 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. 14. The assessee company had given a number of properties on rent in Kolkata, Mumbai and other places to M/s. KCT & Bros. Ltd., its sister concern. As noted by the A.O. during

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)

11. This legal dichotomy emerging from the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 115JB particularly having regard to the first proviso contained therein in case of a banking company, would convince us that machinery provision provided in sub- section (2) of section l15JB of the Act, would be rendered wholly unworkable in such a situation. In a well known