FALCON VINCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PR.CIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Falcon Vincon Private Limited Vs. Pr. Cit-3, Kolkata 102, Tower No.12, Shriram Sameeksha, New Gangamma Gudi Police Station Road, Naidu Layout, Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf3203C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

Section 27(iiib) of the Act, the appellant is treated as "deemed owner". (b) The aforesaid clause also mentions that partnership firm may take any other business as may be mutually agreed upon by the partners. 17. In the instant case, therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the activity in question was in the nature of business

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

19 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. 23. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand supported the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

19 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. 23. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand supported the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

19 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. 23. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand supported the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court

E M C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

house property income or a business income. As far as the issue is concerned, we deem it appropriate to take note the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Limited 9 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited reported in 263 ITR 143. Hon’ble Court, however, considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

SRI PRADEEP SINGH GURUNG,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

house property within stipulated time frame so the said sum of Rs.22,19,177/- was added to assessee’s income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who restricted the deduction u/s. 54 of the Act to the extent of Rs.16,97,479/- (Rs.13,61,727/- + Rs.3,35,752/-) out of the total claim of Rs.35

ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

section 54F of the Act and hence Rs.3,10,60,677/- was added to the total income of the assessee. 8. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order

BIP DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 24 of the Act and also allow the claim of the assessee for business expenses under various heads after verifying the same in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ganga Properties Limited (supra). Grounds No. 2, 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 are thus

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

property at VIP Road, Kolkata under the head ‘Long term Capital Gain’ instead of ‘Short Term Capital Gain’. 18. The second issue raised by the appellant in the matter of computation of capital gains is granting deduction for cost of improvement of Rs.14,50,000/- in the case of Smt. Sarbani Gupta. At the time of hearing before

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

property at VIP Road, Kolkata under the head ‘Long term Capital Gain’ instead of ‘Short Term Capital Gain’. 18. The second issue raised by the appellant in the matter of computation of capital gains is granting deduction for cost of improvement of Rs.14,50,000/- in the case of Smt. Sarbani Gupta. At the time of hearing before

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

AMIT PAREKH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property, he had borrowed housing loan and started construction on the site belonging to him. After the sale, the amount spent towards construction of the house is more than the consideration received by the sale of agricultural land and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of section 54F of the Act." 19

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

19,58,731.81. 6. Regarding the second point of concealment of income from house property. the explanation forwarded is that the addition made in the assessment was not lawful because the assessee followed cash basis accounting, It was stated that the assessee would be filing a petition for rectification u/s 154 in due course. 9 Sri Gautam Kumar Mitra A.Yr

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]

19) (Mad HC) f) Ramsukh Properties vs. DCIT (138 ITD 278) (Pune ITAT) 4.26 Copies of these decisions were filed in the course of hearing from which it appeared that in all the above cases the assessees had undertaken development of housing projects which were approved by a common sanction granted by the local authorities. The assessees however completed

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 from sub-letting: 3.1. On perusal of the details filed by the assessee it is observed that during the year the assessee earned income from sub-letting amounting to Rs.69,42,958/- from letting out property to Reliance Industries Ltd. and income from service fee of Rs.47,95,168/- from Reliance Industries Ltd. assessee was asked to show