BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

83 results for “house property”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi762Mumbai699Karnataka500Bangalore214Jaipur159Hyderabad115Chennai109Ahmedabad97Kolkata83Cochin73Indore62Chandigarh56Pune51Calcutta51Visakhapatnam49Telangana39Amritsar37Raipur36Surat31Guwahati24Lucknow24SC16Allahabad14Cuttack13Nagpur10Rajkot8Jodhpur6Panaji6Patna6Agra5Rajasthan5Kerala4Orissa3Varanasi2Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)102Section 26389Addition to Income49Section 14743Section 15440Disallowance39Section 14A31Deduction29Section 14821House Property

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 19(38)

Showing 1–20 of 83 · Page 1 of 5

21
Section 92C20
Section 5418

house property, remuneration and interest on capital from partnership firm, capital gain and from other sources. " Thus, the assessee had made full and true disclosure of his claim of exempt LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Act and the same was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/11/2009

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

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

ITA 857/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

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.

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(4)(b)Section 24Section 263

House Property was wholly incorrect. However on perusal of the return of income filed by assessee, which had been accepted by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act, it would be seen that the following amounts of interest on borrowed funds were claimed: (i) in respect of property let out Rs.1,35,428 (ii) in respect

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 334/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

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

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

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

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 335/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

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

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 337/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

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

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

154 in due course. 9 Sri Gautam Kumar Mitra A.Yr.2006-07 7. The explanation furnished by the authorised representative is based on incorrect appreciation of law as regards charging of income. from house property. Section

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

154 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee sold his residential flats in Delhi and Kolkata and made reinvestment in another property and also invested in section 54EC Bonds and claimed exemption u/s 54 and 54EC of the Act. The return of income

GANESHDAS RAMGOPAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/KOL/2015[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 1999-2000

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 244ASection 264

house property'. Keeping in view the provision of Calcutta Municipal Act 1980 and West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 the assessee merely is an agent of Municipal Corporation for the collection of tenant share of Municipal taxes and therefore, the receipt cannot be assessed under head of 'income from other sources' . The AO is therefore, not justifying in assessing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 475/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22Section 32

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

JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 24Section 263Section 68

house property”. Therefore, AO has examined the issue relating to income from commercial go- down and then took a possible view, hence order passed by AO u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 is not erroneous. Apart from this, the ld. Counsel also pointed out that in assessee`s case a search and seizure operation was conducted under section

ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAGHU NANDAN MODI, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2186/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 28

house property must be computed on the basis of the sum which might reasonably be expected to let from year to year and with the annual municipal value provided such a value is not above the standard rent receivable and that would be the safest guide for this purpose and the rent actually received would not be of any relevance

ALOK GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD.28(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 711/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rip Das, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48(2)Section 54

section 48(2) of the Act and so also proper deduction u/s 54 of the Act be allowed for investment in new house 2 Alok Ghosh, AYs: 2016-17 property. Hence it is prayed that arbitrary addition of Rs.13,23,960/- be directed to be deleted from the head of "Long Term Capital Gain" by making correct computation by allowing

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1309/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1309/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maa Amba Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aaecm 6507 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, AR
Section 143(3)Section 22

house property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar supra had placed heavy reliance on the finding of aforesaid facts recorded by the tribunal. Whereas in the instant case before us, the ld CITA had categorically stated that the assessee had carried on an organized activity with a view to commercially exploit the civic infrastructure

SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1334/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Saurabh Bagaria, ARFor Respondent: P.P Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 263Section 40Section 57

154 to 156/Gau/2019, dated 06.07.2022) that the aforesaid amendment was clarificatory in nature and would apply retrospectively. Accordingly, the explanation was applicable to AY 2016-17 and dismissed this ground of appeal. 4.3 During the course of appeal before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) Vs. Era Infrastructure

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1791/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

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

Section 92C

house property. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. Ground No. 3 of the revenue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 6,36,83,752/- on the assets which were put to use in the earlier financial year. 8. The brief facts

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

154 of the Act and carried out the proceedings. One of the apparent mistakes noticed by the ld. Assessing Officer was that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act but this Section relates to profit on sale of property used for residence and cannot apply on the case of the assessee where agricultural land has been sold

RISHI GRAPHICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1666/KOL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. Nos. 1666 To 1668/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Rishi Graphics Pvt. Ltd. ..............................……………………………………Appellant C/O. Baid & Co., Chartered Accountants, 10C, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aabcr 1977 M] Income Tax Officer...................………………………………………………..............Respondent Ward No. 3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri O.P. Baid, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2018 Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 2, Kolkata For A.Y. 2002-03 & 2003-04 & Since The Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Inter Related, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First I Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2002-03 Being

house property” on the ground that the same was not owned by the assessee and it was taken on rent from M/s. Print Sales Company. He, however, disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of rent payable to M/s. Print Sales Company mainly on the ground that such rent was not paid by the assessee company

RISHI GRAPHICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1667/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. Nos. 1666 To 1668/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Rishi Graphics Pvt. Ltd. ..............................……………………………………Appellant C/O. Baid & Co., Chartered Accountants, 10C, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aabcr 1977 M] Income Tax Officer...................………………………………………………..............Respondent Ward No. 3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri O.P. Baid, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2018 Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 2, Kolkata For A.Y. 2002-03 & 2003-04 & Since The Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Inter Related, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First I Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2002-03 Being

house property” on the ground that the same was not owned by the assessee and it was taken on rent from M/s. Print Sales Company. He, however, disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of rent payable to M/s. Print Sales Company mainly on the ground that such rent was not paid by the assessee company

RISHI GRAPHICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1668/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. Nos. 1666 To 1668/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Rishi Graphics Pvt. Ltd. ..............................……………………………………Appellant C/O. Baid & Co., Chartered Accountants, 10C, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aabcr 1977 M] Income Tax Officer...................………………………………………………..............Respondent Ward No. 3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri O.P. Baid, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2018 Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 2, Kolkata For A.Y. 2002-03 & 2003-04 & Since The Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Inter Related, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First I Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2002-03 Being

house property” on the ground that the same was not owned by the assessee and it was taken on rent from M/s. Print Sales Company. He, however, disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of rent payable to M/s. Print Sales Company mainly on the ground that such rent was not paid by the assessee company