ITO, WD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BATRAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 984/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 22 of the Act the charge to tax of income from house property is based on the ownership of such property. The admitted position in the present case is that the assessee is only a tenant and not the owner of the property. It is also not the case of the revenue that the tenancy is for a period

BATRAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Officer & Referred To Para No.4.3 Of Cit(A). The Ld. Ar Submits That The Revenue Did Not Prefer Any Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.01.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed By This Tribunal. After Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The Issue Is Covered By The Batram Properties Pvt. Ltd.

section 22 of the Act the charge to tax of income from house property is based on the ownership of such property. The admitted position in the present case is that the assessee is only a tenant and not the owner of the property. It is also not the case of the revenue that the tenancy is for a period

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

housing or real estate land and property authorities. authorities. 24 Capital Investment Leasehold properties Purchasing a freehold may require less initial property requires a capital investment larger upfront capital compared to investment. purchasing a freehold property. 25 Flexibility Leasehold properties Freehold properties offer less flexibility as provide more flexibility the lessee is bound by as the owner has the terms

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Developmвы Севраар Менца\nDinesh Chandra Halder\nAuthorised Representativa\n7. We have also perused the copy of the agreement which is attached at page no.15\nto 33 and thus, it is clear from the above that all payments were made through banking\nchannel right from the F.Y. 2012-13 to A.Υ. 2018-19. Therefore, conclusion drawn by\nthe

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT SURJIT KAUR UBEROI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 181/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Surjit Kaur Uberoi [Pan: Aanup 4301 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 181/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Surjit Kaur Uberoi -Vs- Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata [Pan: Aanup 4301 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.02.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 ITA No.181/Kol/2016& C.O.13/Kol/2017 Smt. Surjit Kaur Oberoi A.Yr.2012-13 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in directing

SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

property, rights or services agreed to between the LLP and any Partner in proportion as mutually agreed unanimously by the partners. The contribution may be increased or reduced at any time and from time to time in the same way. The partners of the LLP are entitled to share profit and losses in proportion mentioned herein below or any other

VINOD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

property, rights or services agreed to between the LLP and any Partner in proportion as mutually agreed unanimously by the partners. The contribution may be increased or reduced at any time and from time to time in the same way. The partners of the LLP are entitled to share profit and losses in proportion mentioned herein below or any other

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

property, rights or services agreed to between the LLP and any Partner in proportion as mutually agreed unanimously by the partners. The contribution may be increased or reduced at any time and from time to time in the same way. The partners of the LLP are entitled to share profit and losses in proportion mentioned herein below or any other

RAM NARESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

property, rights or services agreed to between the LLP and any Partner in proportion as mutually agreed unanimously by the partners. The contribution may be increased or reduced at any time and from time to time in the same way. The partners of the LLP are entitled to share profit and losses in proportion mentioned herein below or any other

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd.(HDIL), under two agreements dt. 08.11.2007 & dt. 30.01.2009 for a consideration of Rs. 115 Crores. The sale consideration was payable by HDIL in instalments. There is no dispute that Long Term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.81,57,21,820 resulted on account of sale of the property at Bhandhup and the transfer of the capital

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

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

155 TTJ 294). 9 Britannia Industries Limited b) The second proposition argued by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act are not applicable to leasehold rights held in land and building at Ranjangaon, which were acquired in F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18, when the provisions

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICKE GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey , Jm &

House P-7, Chowringhee Square 14, Gurusaday Road, 8th Floor, Kolkata – 700 069 Kolkata – 700 019 PAN/GIR No.AABCG1614Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Sankar Halder Assessee by Shri Tanmay Dutta Date of Hearing 04/04/2019 Date of Pronouncement 26/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.895/Kol/2017 for A.Y.2008-09 arises out of the order

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICK GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

House, 4th Floor, P-7, Chowrnghee Square, 8th Floor, 31, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700 Kolkata-69 001 [PAN No.AABCG 1614 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None आवेदक क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-Sr-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 17-08-2018 घोषणा

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICK GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

House, 4th Floor, P-7, Chowrnghee Square, 8th Floor, 31, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700 Kolkata-69 001 [PAN No.AABCG 1614 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None आवेदक क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-Sr-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 17-08-2018 घोषणा

M/S DIVAKAR SOLAR SYSTEM LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

155, it was held by the House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above

SIMOCO SYSTEMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2 (1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

housing during the previous year 2017-18. The company had e-filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 26/09/2018 declaring total income at Rs.NIL. The assessee had shown deemed total income u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.69,07,501/-. The return was revised on 12/10/2018 showing the same total income as well as the income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

House at Chowringhee, Kolkata consisting of total area of the property 35.60 kottah. The assessee has sold its property for a composite consideration of Rs. 21 crores on dated 28th June 2001 to M/s Reliance Industries Limited. The sale price for the land was considered at Rs. 17,92,41,908/- and balance