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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. Thus, the only issue, which is raised and has to be examined, is whether the\nrespondent-assessee can be denied benefit of Section 54F because construction of the\nhouse had commenced before the sale of the shares i.e., on 17th September, 2008.\n6. Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal have relied upon decisions of Allahabad High\nCourt and Karnataka High

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

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, Long term Capital Gains and Other Sources. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted, on various dates, all the details as were requisitioned from

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

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]

139 for the year in which transfer took place, shall qualify for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, the AO is hereby directed to enhance the amount of exemption u/s 54 of the Act by Rs.3,35,752/- and grounds of appellant in this behalf is allowed to the extent of this amount.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision

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]

5 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 CIT(A) held that in terms of the said Development Agreement the appellants had transferred their right, title & interest in land in favour of the Developer when possession of the property was delivered for carrying out Development of the property. In the opinion of Ld. CIT(A) in terms

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]

5 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 CIT(A) held that in terms of the said Development Agreement the appellants had transferred their right, title & interest in land in favour of the Developer when possession of the property was delivered for carrying out Development of the property. In the opinion of Ld. CIT(A) in terms

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

house property and accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law, in cancelling the assessment order without considering the implication of Section

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

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the assessee / respondent is that the agency commission / sales commission paid by the assessee to non-resident agents, for the services rendered by them, outside India, in procuring export orders for the assessee, would not attract or partake the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context

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

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the assessee / respondent is that the agency commission / sales commission paid by the assessee to non-resident agents, for the services rendered by them, outside India, in procuring export orders for the assessee, would not attract or partake the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context

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

5. The Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill explained the rationale of the insertion of the new provision in following words :- “With a view to augment compliance of TDS provisions, it is proposed to extend the provisions of section 40(a)(i) to payments of interest, commission or brokerage, fees for professional services or fees for technical services

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

5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata erred in not granting appropriate deduction under the Income Tax Act on Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.77,86,238/- arising on sale of residential house for Rs.1

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)

5. In the result, the assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2016 is set aside and restored to the file of the A.O for passing of fresh assessment order to the extent of determining the correct amount of interest to be deducted u/s 24(b) against the House Property Income from Ware House rental income as directed

SHREE GOVIND PROPERTY & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(5) of the Act and therefore permitting such claim beyond the statutory time limit for revising return is not permissible. Such action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law. 4.0 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that an inadvertent mistake made by the appellant

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5,48,40,817/-, on which the deduction u/s 54 of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 (the Act) has been claimed in the return filed in form ITR-2\nand only Long-Term Capital Gain to the extent of ₹1,88,317/- was\noffered to tax. The Id. AO noted that the said capital gain was utilized\nby purchase

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

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

house / real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context of Section