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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

Section 23 of the Act. On appeal the Tribunal found that the tenant was in the occupation of the said flat since 1967 and was therefore protected under the West Bengal Premises Act, 1956. The bonafide of the tenancy was not in doubt and therefore the tenancy could not be disregarded or held to be sham. The Tribunal thus held

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

Section 23 of the Act. On appeal the Tribunal found that the tenant was in the occupation of the said flat since 1967 and was therefore protected under the West Bengal Premises Act, 1956. The bonafide of the tenancy was not in doubt and therefore the tenancy could not be disregarded or held to be sham. The Tribunal thus held

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

144 flats. The development commenced prior to 01.04.2004 and therefore claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) construction was required to be completed prior 31.03.2008. In the returns for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 assessee claimed deduction only in relation to development of Row Houses and not in respect of flats. The AO rejected the assessee's claim on the ground that

M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Properties (supra) held as follows:- “Whether construction of building 'E' constitutes a 'housing project under section 80- IB(10) The expression 'housing project' is neither defined under section 2 of the Act nor under section 80-IB(10). Even under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 as also under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, the expression 'housing

SHELTER PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (A)-XII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Housing Development Limited (BSHDL) (2nd Party) and it is clear that was executed after the amendment came into force w.e.f 24-09- 2001. The fact remains admitted that it was not registered. Therefore, in our opinion, the order in the case of Shri Harder Singh of ITAT Chandigarh is applicable and we hold that in the absence of registration

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

144, the loan amount of Rs.2,28,000/- claimed to be received by the assessee in cash from twelve creditors in a sum of Rs.19,000/- each was added by the Assessing Officer treating the same as unexplained cash credits under section 68 as a result of the failure of the assessee to establish the creditworthiness of the concerned loan

MOHD. ZULKARNAIN ALI,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Mohd. Zulkarnain Ali Ito, Ward-1(1), Durgapur 98, Ramanujam Road, B-Zone, Vs. Durgapur-713205. Pan: Ahspa 0354 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm:

House Property Income as per 26AS report on estimated basis which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. that on the facts of the case, the A.0. was wrong in not considering the facts that the assessee carrying on business as electrical equipment and light renting and should be deducted @2% on Rent of plant & machinery as per section

MEDICARE TPA SERVICE (I) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOL - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

property; and whether the developers were or were not ready and willing to carry out their part of the bargain. Since we are of the view that sub-clause (v) of Section 2(47) of the Act is not attracted on the facts of this case, we need not go into any other factual question. 24. The matter can also

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

SUBRATA DAW,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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]

House Property (b) Income from Business (c) Capital Gain and (d) Income from Other Sources. Scrutiny Assessment was selected through CASS. The assessee was the owner of 1/4th share in an ancestral joint family property comprising of land and building situated at 152,153,154, & 155, Maniktala Main Road, Kolkata -700054 which was totally sold out by 2 Subrata

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

house properties' on the dissolution of the firm on 13-3-1961. In the memo of Page 8 of 18 I.T.A. No.: 1572/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chandra Bros. adjustment for income-tax purposes, however, the above sum was deducted on the ground that it was not assessable either as revenue or capital. The ITO issued a notice under section

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

144/- and, accordingly, recomputed the LTCG at Rs.36,18,119/- in respect of the said property, which was added to the total income. For the property at Aurangabad (Dag Nos.206 & 207), the 4 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 property was sold on 19.03.2012 relevant to F.Y. 2011-12 vide registered sale deed at a total consideration of Rs.18

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

House property. However, as the same have been claimed as a deduction under the head of business income and receipts disclosed under that head, I see no good reason for the impugned disallowance. The action of the Ld. AO in the matter is therefore held to be unsustainable in the facts of the case, and is directed to be deleted

M/S. ASIA INSULATED WIRES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Asia Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd…………....…………..……………...……..….…….........Appellant No.6A, “Basera Enclave” 6Th Floor Wing 2 Of Orbit City 82, Raja S.C. Mullick Road Kolkata -700 084 [Pan : Aadca 9496 L] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Kolkata….……………………….……..……............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

144 of the Act on 28/03/2015, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,17,960/-. The Assessing Officer had treated the rental income of Rs.9,70,200/-, earned by the assessee as income assessable under the head “income from house property”. The assessee had computed the income in question under the head “income from other sources”. Consequent

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 2(47)(v) on Income Tax Act recognizes such transaction for the purpose of taxation. Therefore, the same should be treated as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG for short). The assessee further submitted that the possession of the property was first owned by the assessee dated 14th March 2005. However, the AO has taken the day of 14th March

POINEER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 467/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Pioneer Property Management Limited,…….Appellant 1St Floor, 10A, Rowdon Street, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaccp5904H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Circle-7(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 07, 2024 O R D E R

144/- the property 6. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 7. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated his contention, as were raised before the ld. Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Inspector’s report was not supplied to him. The materials collected behind the assessee by the Inspector were

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry of the 3 stipulated time period provided in the notice for submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and denying a reasonable opportunity

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry of the 3 stipulated time period provided in the notice for submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and denying a reasonable opportunity