DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SATURDAY CLUB LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

house property let to its members and their guests is not chargeable to tax. ” Cricket Club of India: Whether the income from the property held by the assessee could not be brought charge under the provisions of Sec. 22 to 26 of the Act. India Motion Pictures Association (180 ITR 160): “Whether the principle of mutuality is applicable

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

house property let to its members and their guests is not chargeable to tax. ” Cricket Club of India: Whether the income from the property held by the assessee could not be brought charge under the provisions of Sec. 22 to 26 of the Act. India Motion Pictures Association (180 ITR 160): “Whether the principle of mutuality is applicable

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]

Properties vs. DCIT (138 ITD 278) the A/R of the assessee claimed that it was prevented by factors beyond its control and therefore the beneficial deduction should not be denied on technical grounds. Having considered the relevant decision of the ITAT I am however unable to agree with the A/R's contentions. In the case decided by ITAT Pune

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

house rent. The facts are brought out at para 5.1 at page 16 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is extracted below: “5.1. In the computation of Income, the appellant company computed Gross Annual Value of the property situated at 13, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi at Rs. 30,000/- being the rent received by M/s. Gupta & Syal

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

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

house rent. The facts are brought out at para 5.1 at page 16 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is extracted below: “5.1. In the computation of Income, the appellant company computed Gross Annual Value of the property situated at 13, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi at Rs. 30,000/- being the rent received by M/s. Gupta & Syal

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house no. 32. Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah on 7th January 1910. The name of Bengal Flour mill was subsequently changed to BEM Industries Ltd. (Please see Development agreement dated 1st January 2007 at page

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house no. 32. Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah on 7th January 1910. The name of Bengal Flour mill was subsequently changed to BEM Industries Ltd. (Please see Development agreement dated 1st January 2007 at page

DEBASISH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Debasish Banerjee…………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, 1, Gibson Lane, Kol- 700069.. [Pan: Agfpb3602C] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of An Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 30.04.2021 By Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata.

house property and income from other sources and the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,40,660/- for the year under consideration. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of “the assessee has reported sale consideration in the capital gain schedule of return of income, which is less than value

KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

House” 14, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700019 Telephone: 2287-3067/8737/1816 Fax No.: (033) 2287-2577/7089 KPLC/IT/2018-19 August 24, 2023 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-l Coimbatore Dear Sir, PAN: AABCK3342D ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DIN: ITBA/APL/F/APL 1/2023-24/1055203146(1), DATED 17/08/2023 2 Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. APPEAL NO, CIT(A), Kolkata-4/10179/2019-20 This has reference

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

160/-. Income was declared under the heads ‘salary’, ‘house property’ and ‘other sources’. The Assessing Officer records at para 4 & 5 of his order as follows:- “4. ............They produced relevant evidences in support of the return of income which were seen and placed on record. 5. It is seen from the computation of total income filed along with the return

CHEMICAL & METALLURGICAL DESIGN CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT- (OSD), CEN. CIR-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T (Ss) A.Nos.94 & 95/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

property) was arrived at Rs.18,73,43,882/-. Accordingly the deduction u/s 10 A of the Act was computed as under :- 74046584 X 11855867 = 46,22,679/ 187343882 13. The ld. CIT(A) ignored the computation mechanism followed by the ld. AO and proceeded to identify certain specific expenses which in his opinion were common expenses and observed that

CHEMICAL & METALLURGICAL DESIGN CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT- (OSD), CEN. CIR-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T (Ss) A.Nos.94 & 95/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

property) was arrived at Rs.18,73,43,882/-. Accordingly the deduction u/s 10 A of the Act was computed as under :- 74046584 X 11855867 = 46,22,679/ 187343882 13. The ld. CIT(A) ignored the computation mechanism followed by the ld. AO and proceeded to identify certain specific expenses which in his opinion were common expenses and observed that

CHEMICAL & METALLURGICAL DESIGN CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT- (OSD), CEN. CIR-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T (Ss) A.Nos.94 & 95/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

property) was arrived at Rs.18,73,43,882/-. Accordingly the deduction u/s 10 A of the Act was computed as under :- 74046584 X 11855867 = 46,22,679/ 187343882 13. The ld. CIT(A) ignored the computation mechanism followed by the ld. AO and proceeded to identify certain specific expenses which in his opinion were common expenses and observed that

ACIT, CIRCLE -15(1),KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. BALJIT SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

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

160 ITD 199 (Kolkata - Trib.)J b) DCIT Kol v. Guiness Securities Ltd. [2016] 68 taxmann .com 375 (Kolkataf- Trib.) c) Lohia Securities Ltd. v. DCIT, Kol [2016] 66 taxmann.com 86 / [20jl6] 157 ITD 265 (Kolkata - Trib.). Explanation to section 73 was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2014 whereby in the exception clause was modified to include the Companies

RISHI KUMAR AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CC-XXII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Bench Is Squarely Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court. The Ld.Ar Submits That A Paper Book Containing Pages 1 To 44 Was Filed On 29- 03-2017 & Referred To Page No-7 Where A Copy Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court Was Placed & Urged The Bench To Allow The Appeal In Terms Of This Decision. We Find That The Issue Before Us Is Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows Supra & We Proceed To Hear The Case & Dispose Of The Same By Perusing The Material On Record. 3. The Only Issue Is To Be Decided As To Whether The Cit-A Justified In Confirming The Impugned Penalties Imposed By The Ao U/S. 271(1) (C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

160/- stating that he derived his income from salary, house property and business. In response to notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed all the details as required by the AO. The AO accepted the said return as filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act and treated the same

SMRITI JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-33(2),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1224/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Smriti Jaiswal,…………………………..…………Appellant Flat 33, 86 Prince Golam Hossain Street, Kolkata-700032 [Pan:Afdpj6962N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Sankar Lal Poddar, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

house property income and income from proprietary business, M/s. Movie Max, which runs Popkorn Cinema at Galaxia Mall, Ranchi. Further, the assessee is also partner in M/s. Sujata Picture Palace along with another partner, Shri Dushyant Jaiswal. During the year under consideration, Sujata Cinema was gutted in fire on 10.02.2017 before filing of the income tax returns. A copy

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)

Housing Estate, Lake Town, Kolkata-700089 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABTP 2734 M (Assessee) .. (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Das, FCA Respondent by : Shri Robin Chowdhury, DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 25/07/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 01/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned cross appeals filed by the Assessee

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)

Housing Estate, Lake Town, Kolkata-700089 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABTP 2734 M (Assessee) .. (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Das, FCA Respondent by : Shri Robin Chowdhury, DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 25/07/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 01/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned cross appeals filed by the Assessee