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 in India\nwithin the time prescribed under Section 54(1), the deduction is bound to be\ngranted without reference to Section 54(2), which would come into operation\nonly in the event of failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the\nrequirement under Section 54(1). Mere non compliance of a procedural\nrequirement under Section

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

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) ..

House Property" and assessed as such under scrutiny assessment (ii) It is submitted that the primary object clause of the Memorandum of Association does not state that the business of the Assessee is of renting of property. The Assessee Company has purchased the property with the intention of letting it out and to earn rental income from the same

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3 years of sale of asset.\nFrom the plain reading of the provision, it is clear that it is not necessary to invest from\nthe sale consideration as a new house can be purchased one year before the sale. In\nmy opinion, on the basis of the facts on record, the appellant has fulfilled the conditions\nstipulated in section

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 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 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]

13 Padma Logistics & Khanij Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2010-11 23. The other reason given by the AO to reject the revised ROI was that both the demerging company and the resultant company have claimed the same loss resulting in double claim of set off and carry forward of losses pertaining to the demerged undertaking. On this allegation

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

13,140/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 04.09.2015. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) on 28.12.2016. He accepted the stand of the assessee that rental income is to be assessed as a house property

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)

House property in Singapore is not taxable in India under DTAA while as per Article 25 of DTAA, it is taxable in India. 3 M/s UCO Bank 10. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 relates to addition

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

property. Hence, the assessee is eligible for deduction Sec.54 of the Act. But in the present case, whether the assessee has invested the LTCG arising out of sale of these apartments in the new residential house or not, has not been examined by the AO, these need examination, factually. Hence, for factual examination, we set aside this issue

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

property. Hence, the assessee is eligible for deduction Sec.54 of the Act. But in the present case, whether the assessee has invested the LTCG arising out of sale of these apartments in the new residential house or not, has not been examined by the AO, these need examination, factually. Hence, for factual examination, we set aside this issue

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

House Property”. I find that the fact that the appellant had let out the properties to M/s. KCT & Bros (Coal Sales) Limited more than 3 to 4 decades ago is not in dispute. This fact has been admitted by the AO in his remand report as well. I therefore find that the bonafide of the tenancies of M/s. KCT & Bros

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

House Property”. I find that the fact that the appellant had let out the properties to M/s. KCT & Bros (Coal Sales) Limited more than 3 to 4 decades ago is not in dispute. This fact has been admitted by the AO in his remand report as well. I therefore find that the bonafide of the tenancies of M/s. KCT & Bros

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

House Property”. I find that the fact that the appellant had let out the properties to M/s. KCT & Bros (Coal Sales) Limited more than 3 to 4 decades ago is not in dispute. This fact has been admitted by the AO in his remand report as well. I therefore find that the bonafide of the tenancies of M/s. KCT & Bros

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

sections 23, 24 and 71 of the Income Tax Act as well as considering the documentary evidence to be placed by the assessee in support of the alleged claim of interest paid on house property loan for which reasonable opportunity of hearing to be given to the assessee. Thus Grounds No. 1 to 3 are allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property” in accordance with section 24 of the Act and also allow the claim of the assessee for business expenses 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 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal

JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

house property was a possible view. Hence, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is based on wrong