DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GANESH REALTY & MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.581/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

house property, but the utility charges of Rs.7,59,59,588/- received by the assessee from shop and office owners/tenants was taken as income from other sources.The Assessee had also taken various unsecured loans. During assessment proceedings,the assessee had submitted before the AO, the PAN of said creditors, copies of loan confirmations, extract of bank statement, copies of acknowledgement

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

House property' has been upheld. All the expenses allowable has already been considered by the AO by allowing deductions u/s 24(a) and administrative expenses and financial charges ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, no other expense is allowable. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is dismissed. In the result, the appeal

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

House Rent at Rs. 450,000/- (decided by Assessing Officer) being 15 times of actual rent on estimate based on the Sale value of the Property of Rs. 120 Crores without considering written submission and provisions of Section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

House Rent at Rs. 450,000/- (decided by Assessing Officer) being 15 times of actual rent on estimate based on the Sale value of the Property of Rs. 120 Crores without considering written submission and provisions of Section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANUKA VENTURES PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1413/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 7883 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

120/- in its profit and loss account under the head ‘other expenses’. Out of this, he allowed Rs 25,00,298/- as business expenditure to be set off against other business income and disallowed Rs 92,98,822/- as the rental income earned by the assessee is to be taxed only as income from house property and not as business

SHREE GURU REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

house property. 4. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving a direction to the A.O. u/s. 150 for verification of share capital and share premium amount raised by the assessee in the relevant year though the same was not the subject matter of the instant appeal

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property without considering the facts that as per the said old agreement dt. 06.01.1975 between the assessee and the erstwhile owner M/s Murray & Co. Pvt. Ltd., duly authenticated and registered by a Notary, the assessee firm became the deemed owner of the property u/s 2(47)(v) of the I.Tax Act and accordingly the gain 1 loss on sale

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property without considering the facts that as per the said old agreement dt. 06.01.1975 between the assessee and the erstwhile owner M/s Murray & Co. Pvt. Ltd., duly authenticated and registered by a Notary, the assessee firm became the deemed owner of the property u/s 2(47)(v) of the I.Tax Act and accordingly the gain 1 loss on sale

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

property reported in TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during

BENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Bengalshrachi Acit, Cir-5(1), Kolkata Housingdevelopment Aaykar Bhawan V/S. Ltd. P-7 Chowringhee Square, 686 Shrachi Tower, Kolkata-700 069. Anandapur,E.M Bypass, Kolkata-700 107. Pan: Aabcb2808F अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

120; 92[(iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer;] (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal 93[Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

120/- was declared by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, various transactions entered into by the assessee in shares were either in the nature of speculative or non- speculative transactions and accordingly he proceeded to examine separately the nature of all such transactions which had given rise to income/loss to the assessee. On such examination

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT SURJIT KAUR UBEROI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 181/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Surjit Kaur Uberoi [Pan: Aanup 4301 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 181/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Surjit Kaur Uberoi -Vs- Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata [Pan: Aanup 4301 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.02.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 ITA No.181/Kol/2016& C.O.13/Kol/2017 Smt. Surjit Kaur Oberoi A.Yr.2012-13 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in directing

DEWARS GARAGE LIMITED ,ACIT vs. A CIT-5 (1) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House Street Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Vs Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AABCD7605C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nilima Joshi, C.A. Revenue by : Md. Ghayasudding, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal is directed

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

120) (ITAT Mum (iv) Sowmya Sathyan vs ITO (124 taxmann.com 74) (ITAT Bangalore) (v) M/s Kancast Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (55 taxmann.com 171) (ITAT Pune) (vi) Voltas Ltd. v. ITO (74 taxmann.com 99) (ITAT Mum) (vii) Shri Farid Gulmohammed vs. ITO (ITA No. 5136/Mum/2014) (ITAT Mum) (viii) ITO vs Yasin Moosa Godil (20 taxmann.com 424) (ITAT Ahmedabad) (ix) ACIT

KHETAWAT PROPERTIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

120; (b) "record" [shall include and shall be deemed always to have included] all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matterof any appeal [filed

ITO, WARD - 31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAHESH KUMAR SINGHANIA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14

120 (Madras) held as follows :- “Assessability of asset sale - STCG or LTCG - sale of right - date of allotment letter issued by the builder - Whether the asset which was sold by the assessee would be subject to short term capital gains in terms of Section 2(42A) or long term capital gains in terms of Section 2(29A) - Held that

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 319 holds that such a course of action is not permissible in section 263 revision jurisdiction as under: “8. The Tribunal has set aside the order observing that the CIT had not held and come to the conclusion or given a finding that the actual receipt of consideration was more than what was declared

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

120;" 1.1.2. From the above Explanation, it can be seen that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of a superior officer can be revised under section 263 only in cases covered by clause (1) thereof. As such, any provision 4 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited does not cover an order