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

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 24 of the I.T. Act, 1961 allows making certain deduction\nfrom the Net Annual Value of certain 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

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

Section 24 of the I.T. Act, 1961 allows making certain deduction\nfrom the Net Annual Value of certain 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

MACKINTOSH BURN LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1736/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

section 147 of the Act towards repairs of Rs. 15,51,000/- on the contention that building was partly let out and partly occupied for business purposes without appreciating that, the entire repair expenditure was incurred that portion of the building which was exclusively used by the assessee for its business and not for let out portion. 3. That

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Property Management Pvt. Ltd (2023) 151 taxmann.com 103 (Calcutta), pronounced on 31.03.2023 and stated that the order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2023 being after the effective date of amendment by way of Explanation 2 to section 263 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, it was a valid ground for exercising the revisionary power under section 263 as conditions

ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEVA LEASE AND FINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Acit Circle-15(1), V/S. M/S Deva Lease & Aayaka Bhawan,Poorva Finance Pvt. Ltd., 1A, 110, Shantipally, Kolkta- K.B.R. Complex, 4, Ho- 107 Chi-Min Sarani, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcd 7839 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O. No.54/Kol/2017 (A/O Ita No.961/Kol/2017) Assessment Year :2012-13 M/S Deva Lease & V/S. Acit, Circle-15(1), Finance Pvt. Ltd., 1A, Aaykar Bhavan, Poorva, K.B.R. Complex, 4, Ho- 110, Shantipally, Chi-Min Sarani, Kolkata- Kolakta-107 71 [Pan No.Aabcd 7839 E] .. "तया"ेपक/Co-Objector ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 14A r.w. 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 by holding that the same is not attracted in case the assessee’s corresponding dividend income is subjected to Dividend Distribution Tax. The assessee on the other hand strongly supports the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. It seeks to repeat the fact that the impugned dividend income had been

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

SHALINI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

house property afresh in the light of the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Grounds No. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 7. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee has also filed an additional ground claiming that for computing the deduction under section 54F, the actual

I.T.O.WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 2270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income-Tax Officer, Wd-1(4), Kolkata. Vs. Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (Pan: Aaccb3287F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

property to the Partnership firm as their Capital Contribution, by holding that the provisions of section 45(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 is not applicable. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts & circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of share of Revaluation Profit of Rs.37,03,36,187/- received

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

sections. The contention of the assessee with regard to change of opinion was not accepted as in the case of the aassessee, summary assessment was completed u/s 143(1). The Ld. AO had reopened the case for assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on the basis of assessee's ITR for AY 2009-10, the completed assessment orders

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.0L2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high value of non-cash transactions in the current account. As per the information obtained through bank officials the customers is a Gems and Jewellery Trader Transaction pattern shows that account get credit mainly by RTGS & transfer

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.0L2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high value of non-cash transactions in the current account. As per the information obtained through bank officials the customers is a Gems and Jewellery Trader Transaction pattern shows that account get credit mainly by RTGS & transfer

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.0L2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high value of non-cash transactions in the current account. As per the information obtained through bank officials the customers is a Gems and Jewellery Trader Transaction pattern shows that account get credit mainly by RTGS & transfer

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 16.04.2013, 07.12.2011, & 13,12,2011for assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2009- 10 respectively. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee though several notices were issued through RPAD. So we decided to hear the ITA No.2097-2100/Kol/2013 A.Ys

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 16.04.2013, 07.12.2011, & 13,12,2011for assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2009- 10 respectively. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee though several notices were issued through RPAD. So we decided to hear the ITA No.2097-2100/Kol/2013 A.Ys

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 16.04.2013, 07.12.2011, & 13,12,2011for assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2009- 10 respectively. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee though several notices were issued through RPAD. So we decided to hear the ITA No.2097-2100/Kol/2013 A.Ys