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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house was being shown in the balance sheet of previous\nyear and he was not having two residential properties, but only some\naddition was done to the existing property. The Ld. AO has not\nmentioned the details of the property and the contention of the\nassessee is verified from the details filed before us. This fact could\nnot be rebutted

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house as on the date of transfer of original asset viz.,\ntwo residential properties, in the present case. The assessee has\nhowever claimed that, she did not own any residential property and\nthat the AO had acted on mistaken assumption of fact. The first\nproperty in question is located at 13 BT Road. According to the AO,\nthe assessee owned

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

4 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18 the hearing was concluded. The Ld. CIT(E), vide order dated 16.03.2022, examined the issue of non-utilisation of the corpus fund as per the provisions of section 11(1)(d) of the Act for which the assessee was specifically asked to furnish documentary evidence that the corpus fund received by the assessee

ONKAR SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGICAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rakesh Mishra

House, 7th Floor, C R Avenue Kolkata - 700012 [PAN: AAATO2116M] ….......................…...……………....Appellant vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2, Durgapur Aayakar Bhawan, Durgapur ..........................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Ms. Puja Somani, CA Department represented by : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das Date of concluding the hearing : July 10, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : August

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

11. We, therefore, on going through the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the provisions of section 71, Sections 23 & 24 of the Act are of the considered view that both the lower authorities failed to apply the provisions of section 71, section 23, and section 24 of the Act correctly on the facts of the instant

SUGAM REALTY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

4) Where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than two houses— (a) the provisions of that sub-section shall apply only in respect of two of such houses, which the assessee may, at his option, specify in this behalf; (b) the annual value of the house or houses, other than the house or houses

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

4 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited (iv)It is also evident from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 456 that the entire income was through letting out of the two properties namely, "Chennai House" and "Firhavin Estate"and there is no other income except the income

SIMPLEX KRITA JV,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-33(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Simplex Krita Jv Ito, Ward-33(1), Kolkata Simplex House, 27, Shakespeare Vs Sarani, Kolkata-700017. Pan: Aalas 5699 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal In Ita No. 181/Kol/2023 For A.Y. 2016-17 Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Ld. Cit In Short], Dated 25.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

House, 27, Shakespeare vs Sarani, Kolkata-700017. PAN: AALAS 5699 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2023 O R D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: This appeal in ITA No. 181/Kol/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 is preferred

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

property right, exterior design or practical and new design or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature; (c) capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other 99debt arising during the course

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. PRAFUL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4