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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

139(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO was also of the view that the amount paid to the occupants of the new house property for vacating the same did not constitute the cost of acquisition and was not allowable u/s 54F of the Act, apart from the fact that the new house property purchased was in ruins and decaying

ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

section 139(1) of the Act, was filed by the assessee on 24.07.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 40,87,835/-. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee earned income from Salary, House Property

SRI PRADEEP SINGH GURUNG,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

property was made within time frame stipulated u/s 54(1) of the Act and only the matter was related to source of fund invested under this section. In CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571 (Karn), it was held that date of commencement of construction of new building is immaterial for being eligible for deduction

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

139] in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilised in accordance with, any scheme 40 which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit ; and, for the purposes of sub-section (1), the amount

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

house for claiming exemption u/s 54F, the assessee had purchased three storied building for Rs.47,60,000/-. Such purchase was completed on 28.07.2010. In the impugned order the AO referring to the provisions of Section 54F observed that the property was purchased beyond the prescribed period of two years and therefore denied the benefit claimed by the assessee

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

house for claiming exemption u/s 54F, the assessee had purchased three storied building for Rs.47,60,000/-. Such purchase was completed on 28.07.2010. In the impugned order the AO referring to the provisions of Section 54F observed that the property was purchased beyond the prescribed period of two years and therefore denied the benefit claimed by the assessee

ACIT, CIR-I, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. MRS HARMEET KAUR, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

property and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. We find that the provisions of section 54F of the Act are as below:- Section 54F – Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 30(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

139(1) of the Act should be allowed as a deduction. In other words it was argued that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) has to be held to be retrospective w.e.f. 1-4-2005. The ITAT Kolkata Bench by its order dated 15.12.2010, held as follows: “8. After hearing the rival

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]

139(5) of the Act within the stipulated time frame as per statute. And as such, this contention of the AO is incorrect in law. 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

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

property would be eligible for deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs H.K.Kapoor (Decd) reported in (1998) 234 ITR 753 (All) wherein it was held as under:- “7. The question for consideration is whether exemption on capital gains could

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”. Therefore, AO has examined the issue relating to income from commercial go- down and then took a possible view, hence order passed by AO u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 is not erroneous. Apart from this, the ld. Counsel also pointed out that in assessee`s case a search and seizure operation was conducted under section

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

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (c) where an action has been taken under section

M/S. KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BUDBUD, BURDWAN (EAST) vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 106/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S. Kalyan Educational Society,..............Appellant Budbud Bye Pass (North), Distg. Bardhaman-713403 [Pan: Aabtk2860K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, Durgapur, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Smt. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

property has to be computed oncommercial principles by virtue of Circular No. 5-P(LXX-6) of 1968, dated 19-6-1968. (5) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the delayin filing the return of income and Form 10B was due to firebreakout in the office of the society where records werekept and outbreak of the pandemic

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

139 TTJ (Luck)(UO) 49 d) Realty Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2006) 5 SO 348 (Mumbai) From the aforesaid discussion, we find that the dispute is as to whether the assessee- company is entitled deduction for interest expenditure of Rs.2,11,44,914/- from the income earned under the head house property

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

139 thirty per cent of, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

139 thirty per cent of, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such

AASHIRVAD VILLA LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 1372/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aashirvad Villa Limited,.........................Appellant 21A, Belvedere Road, Kolkata-700027 [Pan: Aaecs6659N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-4(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2024

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act on 15.02.2021. The assessee adjusted the loss during the year in house property

ALOK GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD.28(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

section 48(2) of the Act and so also proper deduction u/s 54 of the Act be allowed for investment in new house 2 Alok Ghosh, AYs: 2016-17 property. Hence it is prayed that arbitrary addition of Rs.13,23,960/- be directed to be deleted from the head of "Long Term Capital Gain" by making correct computation by allowing