ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAKESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2008/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

171 ITR 373 (Madras) it was held that the production of discharged hundies and under section 68. Thereupon the burden shifted to the department to examine creditors and to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine their bankers. In the matter of the furnishing of the names and addresses of the creditors, it has been held in case

SHRI KAMAL KUMAR BANSAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

house property” on account of disallowance of property tax. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to show-cause notice issued during the course of the said proceedings was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer, he imposed a penalty of Rs.66

SATTAR ALI,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

house property Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show-cause notices issued during the course of said proceedings was not found acceptable by him, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.8,41,190/- under section

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

171 and pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in the said case to allow certain claim made by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal was not upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is, however, observed that new claim made by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal in the said case

ACIT, CIR-31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property, income from other source and business income and it is only shown for complying with the statutory requirements which govern the housing board. The financial statements are prepared after complying with the legal requirements but from the operational point of view all the income, disclosed under whatever head are the integral parts of its only business i.e housing project

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

171,66,35,574/- was also imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by dismissing the ground of disallowance of expenses exceeding the prescribed limit of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI/IRDA) amounting

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

171,66,35,574/- was also imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by dismissing the ground of disallowance of expenses exceeding the prescribed limit of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI/IRDA) amounting

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

171,66,35,574/- was also imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by dismissing the ground of disallowance of expenses exceeding the prescribed limit of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI/IRDA) amounting

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

171 -176 of Judicial PB]. 9. Ld. A.R. also referred to the reconciliation of the details of reversals during the year vis-a-vis the provisions made in earlier years alongwith details of disallowances made under section 43B of the Act in those respective years, filed before the ld. PCIT. The ld. A.R. also referred to the relevant extracts

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

house property, long term capital gain (LTCG), short term capital gain (STCG) and other sources”. During the year under consideration, assessee failed to disclose certain income in her return of income and for the same the AO has made the addition in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The detail of such income

RAJESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 10/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Rajesh Agarwal [Pan: Adhpa 3042 O] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C of the Act. 4.8. Addition on account of sub-letting rental income – Rs 8,19,808/- Disallowance of rent paid – Rs 7,20,000/- The ld AO observed from Form 26AS that the assessee had received the total rental income of Rs 5,17,506/- , whereas the parties confirmed the rental amount paid by them aggregating

ITO, WD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAJESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 10/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Rajesh Agarwal [Pan: Adhpa 3042 O] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C of the Act. 4.8. Addition on account of sub-letting rental income – Rs 8,19,808/- Disallowance of rent paid – Rs 7,20,000/- The ld AO observed from Form 26AS that the assessee had received the total rental income of Rs 5,17,506/- , whereas the parties confirmed the rental amount paid by them aggregating

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

171/- as against Nil income declared by the assessee after claiming exemption under section 54 of the Act. Income assessed at Rs.47,90,471/-. Thereafter, the ld. Assessing Officer on 3 I.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav perusal of the assessment records observed that certain apparent mistakes have occurred and thus passed an order under section 154/143

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

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section