DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANUKA VENTURES PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1413/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 7883 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

159/- as the rental income is taxed under the head income from house property. The ld AO observed that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs 1,17,99,120/- in its profit and loss account under the head ‘other expenses’. Out of this, he allowed Rs 25,00,298/- as business expenditure to be set off against other

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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 u/s\n24 of the IT Act, 1961 only on Rent received and not on Electricity Recovery.\nService Charges

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

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 u/s\n24 of the IT Act, 1961 only on Rent received and not on Electricity Recovery.\nService Charges

ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-22, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Royal Calcutta Turf Club Acit, Circle-22, Kolkata. C/O M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Vs. Co., 7, C. R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-700072. (Pan:Aaaar0769A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Property deduction @ 30% 19,39,79,159/- (treating as business income) 5. Add. Expenditure towards Horse Welfare 2,00,00,000/- 6. Add. U/s. 43B (prior period expense) 14,90,447/- 7. Add – Entrance Fees as revenue receipt 26,50,000/- 8. Add – 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) 7,06,352/- 9. Add – Non-deduction

ITO(E), WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PANCHAJANYA TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1841/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

section 14 of the Act. 8. In CIT v. Janaki AmmalAyya Nadar Trust [1985] 153 ITR 159 (Mad.), it was held that payment of tax is necessary to preserve the property of the trust when a demand is lawfully made. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by way of payment of tax out of the current year's income

PANCHAJANYA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1(4), KOKLATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1841/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

section 14 of the Act. 8. In CIT v. Janaki AmmalAyya Nadar Trust [1985] 153 ITR 159 (Mad.), it was held that payment of tax is necessary to preserve the property of the trust when a demand is lawfully made. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by way of payment of tax out of the current year's income

KAUSHAL KISHORE BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-45(1), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

property, capital gains & income from other sources. The assessee has been investing in shares from which it earns long term and short term capital gain. In the current year, the assessee has claimed a deduction u/s 10(38) of Rs.3,66,536/- on account of long term capital gain/loss on listed securities. This capital gain included a long term capital

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

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

159 ITR 253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

159 ITR 253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

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

159 ITR 253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

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

159 ITR 253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

159 ITR 253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

159 ITR 253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

159 ITR 253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

house property for Rs.11,00,000/- cannot treat the same as cash credit. Suspicion cannot replace the real evidential documents. Simply by arguing it to be a case of manipulation the Revenue is not supposed to succeed in their contention without proper evidence. Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT (2005) 6 SOT 245 (Mumbai), Asstt. CIT vs. Claridges Investments & Finances

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

property and its agricultural use need to be ascertained by the AO with reference to the documents and earlier year records. Accordingly the ld. CIT(A) disregarded the submission of the assessee by holding as under : “In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that owing to the omission on the part of the AO to conduct

RAHUL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-46, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

house is seen from pages 64-75 of the P.B. Pages 76-80 of the P.B are the copies of loan agreement with M/s. GRREPL. Another Paper book pages at 81-111, which are the copies of audited P & L account, Balance sheet of M/s. G.K. Ispat Ltd., ( source of source). From the aforesaid documents, it reveals that the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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]

section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, I limit the disallowance to Rs.2.16.000 and the balance rent Rs.9,66,000 is allowed.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is before us. 36. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the assessee had filed the details of the break up of Rs.11,82,000/- which