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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and provisions of Section\n54F were/are applicable to all other assets, not being a residential house. In J.R.\nSubramanya Bhat (supra), Karnataka High Court noticed language of Section 54 which\nstipulated that the assessee should within one year from the date of transfer purchase, or\nwithin a period of two years thereafter, construct a residential house to avail

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9 months after the statutory deadline. The Id. CIT (A)\nnoted that it is a fundamentally legal principle that construction carried\nout without sanctioned plan is illegal and unauthorized. The Id. CIT (A)\nfurther noted that Act cannot be interpreted for grant of exemption for\naction which are not a legally compliant and thus, dismissed the\nappeal.\n6.\nAfter hearing

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Properties Pvt Ltd\n10,675,616\n21.06.2011\n675,616\nChq\nYes\n10,675,616\n1.R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor\n31.03.2012\n900,000\nChq\n1,000,000\n100,000\nKolkata-700 001\nPA No. AACCA 2514J\nHarvard Trading Pvt Ltd\n4,279,123\n21.06.2011\n279,123\nChq\nNo\n4,279,123\n1,R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor\n31.03.2012\n360,000\nChq\n400

KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

House” 14, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700019 Telephone: 2287-3067/8737/1816 Fax No.: (033) 2287-2577/7089 KPLC/IT/2018-19 August 24, 2023 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-l Coimbatore Dear Sir, PAN: AABCK3342D ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DIN: ITBA/APL/F/APL 1/2023-24/1055203146(1), DATED 17/08/2023 2 Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. APPEAL NO, CIT(A), Kolkata-4/10179/2019-20 This has reference

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

house, No. 969, 5th “A” Cross, HRBR, 1stBlock, Bangalore-560043 regarding the purchase the property at E1/10, 10th Floor, East Wing, Canopy Crest. The details of payment made are as under: Cheque no. 189420 dated 22.09.2014 Rs. 10,00,000/- Standard Chartered Bank Cheque no. 189421 dated 16.10.2014 Rs. 40,00,000/- Standard Chartered Bank 9 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

JASPAL SINGH BINDRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed and the Ld

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

house property and profit in share. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 139(1) on 31.10.2022 declaring total income of ₹6,76,96,410/-. The assessee is an Individual and a Resident of India and regularly assessed to tax. During the year under consideration, he earned Pension from Standard Chartered Pension (SCD) Overseas, UK of Rs.1

ESJAY COMMERCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

section 139; Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode:” 8. In the present case before us, we take note of the fact that CPC has not assigned any justification for enhancing the income from business or profession by Rs.10

WEST BENGAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

House property. Net Annual Value is Gross\nAnnual Value less Municipal Taxes paid. In case the property is let out, its rent\nreceived is Gross Annual Value,\nIn view of the above, it is clear that standard deduction@ 30% is available u/s\n24 of the IT Act, 1961 only on Rent received and not on Electricity Recovery.\nService Charges

WEST BENGAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

House property. Net Annual Value is Gross\nAnnual Value less Municipal Taxes paid. In case the property is let out, its rent\nreceived is Gross Annual Value,\nIn view of the above, it is clear that standard deduction@ 30% is available u/s\n24 of the IT Act, 1961 only on Rent received and not on Electricity Recovery.\nService Charges

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

house property which was carried forward has also been denied. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of not granting tax credit in respect of taxes withheld on the foreign income earned by the assessee and credit claimed in accordance with section

ARUS PROPERTIES LLP,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., EXEMPT - 1, CIRCLE - 1(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 533/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Arus Properties Llp,………………………..….…Appellant 7B, Pretoria Street, ‘Alom House’, Kolkata-700071 [Pan:Abcfa4787H] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Exempt-1, Circle-1(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

9) i.e. 30th September, but both the revenue authorities were under the impression that the due date of filing of the return of income was 31st July, 2023. Therefore, they said that the assessee-LLP is not entitled to carry forward and set off against future profits in accordance with the provisions of sections 71 & 72 of the Income

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

house on 03.10.2016 whereas the assessee sold the property on 09.12.2013. According to Ld. 6 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 AO, it meant that valuation was done after a lapse of three years from the transfer of property. Therefore, according to the Ld. CIT(A), the estimation of the cost of the property is not correct

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

House\nProperty and is not related to income from Business or Profession as\nthe assessee had shown the income from letting out the property as\nbusiness income. The concept of notional income has no relevance to\nthe business income unless provided so by the statute. The reduction\nin lease rent was necessitated on account of commercial expediency and\nliability

VAIBHAV DAS MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house properties situated in India and Income from Capital gains and income from other sources. The appellant had earned the following income from outside India (Singapore) which was subject to tax in both India and Singapore: Salary income from Singapore during AY 2021-22, total foreign source income taxed in India of Rs. 99,84,781/- for salary earned

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

house when the building went for re-development. Now the question before is whether the compensation upon re-development of property towards hardship, rehabilitation and shifting received by the assessee is taxable if the potential TDR/FSI is available to the land owner or society which owns the land depending upon the terms of the re-development agreement without transferring

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

139(1) of the Act on 30.11.2018 declaring total income at Rs.1432,82,52,530/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was ultimately framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 22.03.2021with an assessed income of Rs.1470,93,38,584/-. Thereafter the ld. PCIT issued notice under section