I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

THE W.B STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-54,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property. This ground of objection of revenue was consequential in nature and does not require any fresh adjudication. Therefore the direction issued by the Id. CIT(A) to the AO is correct as evidenced from the order of the Id. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Thus while the issue relating

THE W.B. STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2006-07

House Property. 5 Appellant files 1.Claim for 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction Appeal before ITAT reiterated. B Bench, Kolkata 2. Additional ground filed for netting of expenses corresponding to the disallowed incomes. 6 16.09.15 ITAT, B Bench, 1.Claim for 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction Kolkata pronounces relating to Interest Income dismissed by its order pronounces its order relying

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

property u/s 24 of the Act, and accordingly he disallowed the same. The Ld. A.O made further from heads of 'Preparation of Site plan' of Rs.10,000/­, 'Registration of Lease Deed' of Rs.30,500/­, 'Interest on TDS' of Rs.45,319/­, 'TDS written off' of Rs. 73,143/­, 'Travelling & Conveyance' of Rs.13,33,954/­ and 'Personal expenses' of Rs.56

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

property in common pool, it will be an income of the 'HUF', however, the same will be exempt from taxation as the I.T.A No. 2244/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 12 Shri Gyanchand M. Bardia vs. ITO individual members of an 'HUF' have been included in the meaning of 'relative' as provided in the explanation to section

SHILPI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

house as ascertained from the verification report of the departmental Inspector and therefore deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act should have been at Rs. 23,03,35,491/- and should have been disallowed. The Ld. PCIT observed that the AO has not examined and verified the issue in the assessment proceedings thereby rendering the assessment framed

RAVI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

house as ascertained from the verification report of the departmental Inspector and therefore deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act should have been at Rs. 23,03,35,491/- and should have been disallowed. The Ld. PCIT observed that the AO has not examined and verified the issue in the assessment proceedings thereby rendering the assessment framed

RAM SWAROOP BAJAJ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 99/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ram Swaroop Bajaj . –Vs- Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aefpb 2300 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property’, business, as well as from other sources. During the year, the assessee declared long term capital gains of Rs. 2,73,905/-. He claimed that he has sold a plot of land for Rs. 7,50,000/-. During the course of scrutiny, the assessee was asked to submit the evidences of the purchase and the sale

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

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1359/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 0993 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property", "Capital gains" and "Income from other sources"], or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business

THE LAXMI SALT CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

house property, capital gains and other sources which includes income from dividends which is exempt from income tax. During this year, according to assessee, the interest derived by them from Fixed Deposits was Rs. 17,19,626/- whereas the interest paid by them was Rs. 2,26,082/- which was also directly attributable to the income which is not exempt

SMT SUSHMA TANDON,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 308/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2003-04 Smt. Sushma Tandon -Vs- Ito, Ward-45(2), Kolkata [Pan: Acypt 6306 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3)(ii)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 30.12.2010 for the Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. After hearing contentions of both the parties, I find that the assessee has assigned all her rights in her house property which is situated at 379, Block-FE at Sector-III, Salt Lake City Extension area

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