MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-21, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.857/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukesh Kr. Agarwal Vs. P.C.I.T – 21, Kolkata 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 116/1, Girish Ghosh Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata – Liluah, Howrah-711204. 700014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapa 7519D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Respondent By :Md. Usman, Cit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 03.03.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Lncome Tax - 21, Kolkata Under Section 263 Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 27Th March, 2015 Passed By The Lncome Tax Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Is Without Jurisdiction, Against Law & Facts Of The Case & Therefore Illegal & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

section 142(1) of the Act for making inquiry to verify the income declared in the return of income. The aforesaid Notice contained various items of inquiry which inter alia included the details of House Property

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section 142

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section 142

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SATURDAY CLUB LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section 142

SUGAM REALTY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

House Property as per the provisions of Section 23(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ld. CIT(A), Income Tax Department, NFAC erred in law as well in facts in confirming the said addition in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no such Addition was at all called

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

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 132 or section 1324, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

section 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On perusal of 2 Bani Broto Banerjee the record, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee was holding 99% share of Rainey Park Limited. The Guest House/Hotel was being run by the assessee and ultimately on account of losses faced by him, he has sold the property

HARIT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Section 2(1A)(c), Agriculture Income includes any income derived from the building owned & occupied by the receiver of the rent or revenue of any such land provided that the building is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land and is used as a dwelling house or as a store house of the agriculture produce. 4. That

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

house projects, barrack projects, health centre project and other. Since, the projects awarded to the assessee were government project, the assessee after looking into the size and nature of business of the company gave labour contract for Hard Rock Chiselling using rock hammers and chisels, stacking on road side for pipe line trenches, carting excess earth and other similar labour

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

house projects, barrack projects, health centre project and other. Since, the projects awarded to the assessee were government project, the assessee after looking into the size and nature of business of the company gave labour contract for Hard Rock Chiselling using rock hammers and chisels, stacking on road side for pipe line trenches, carting excess earth and other similar labour

PARVESH SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1388/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Parvesh Sharma,……………………………...……Appellant 106, B.T. Road, Rajbari, Bonhooghly, Kolkata-700108, West Bengal [Pan:Bmpps3173Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, W.B.

House Property’. Notice under section 143(2) dated 28.09.2019 was issued to the assessee through ITBA Portal, electronically. Further notices under section 142

SHREE KUMAR BANGUR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

house property after reducing Rs.1,55,159 from the assessee’s share of gross rent of the property. The alternative submission of the assessee to allow deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act @ 30% of Rs 1,55,159 is rejected accordingly” 5. The Ld. AR also pointed out that in the assessee’s own case

PIYUSH MOHAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 48 of the Act. According to him, assessee appears to have availed double deduction of interest on housing loan firstly at the time of furnishing return of income every year under the head loss from self occupied house property and secondly at the time of computing LTCG as claiming the same interest as direct expenses related to transfer

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished the documents including conveyance deed. According to which, the said forth value of the property was ₹4,11,00,000/- [₹3,61,35,000/- for land + ₹49,65,000/- for structure (building) and he assessee determined the Long Term Capital Loss at ₹12,35,377/- as under:- “Long Term Capital Gain/ (Loss

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

142(1) of the Act. Various details called for by ld. AO were submitted. On going through the same ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 10,87,28,000/- on account of compensation paid to Mr. Kunal Saha as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated

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 property within the stipulated time limit as set out in Section 54 of the Act and thus substantively complied with the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 15. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 5,99,150/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS

SMT REENA MAJUMDAR,MIDNAPORE vs. CIT (A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

142(1) fixing the case of the assessee for hearing from time to time. There was, however, no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the said notices and the Assessing Officer, therefore, was left with no option to complete the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act. In the assessment

KAUSHALYA DEALERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Kaushalya Dealers Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata Ltd. 498/H/4, Karl Mark Vs. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 023. Pan: Aadck8028Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr). Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 29.05.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit] Relevant To Ay 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised By Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act & Also The Consequent Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That Revisionary Jurisdiction As Well As The Consequent Order Is Invalid & Nullity As Necessary Conditions Envisaged In Section 263 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Before Invoking The Revisionary Jurisdiction. The Fact In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed A Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 69,040/- Which Was Processed U/S 2 Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd. 143(1) Of The Act. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Assessment Was Framed Vide Order Dated 05.09.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing The Income At Rs. 69,040/- After Taking Into Account The Various Contentions/Replies Of The Assessee Filed During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 4. In the previous year, the assessee had taken loan of Rs. 50 lakhs & 30 lakhs from two companies viz. Lily Vintrade (P) Ltd. and Mountview Dealmark (P) Ltd. But no verification was made”. 4. In reply to the show notice, the assessee filed written submissions alongwith details/evidences explaining that the issues