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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

193 in support of its case. It is however observed that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the said case has held that notional interest on interest free security deposit cannot be added to arrive at the annual value of the property while determining the income under the head income from house property. As rightly contended by the learned counsel

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

193 in support of its case. It is however observed that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the said case has held that notional interest on interest free security deposit cannot be added to arrive at the annual value of the property while determining the income under the head income from house property. As rightly contended by the learned counsel

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

193 in support of its case. It is however observed that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the said case has held that notional interest on interest free security deposit cannot be added to arrive at the annual value of the property while determining the income under the head income from house property. As rightly contended by the learned counsel

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 which has been accepted, though there was no scrutiny assessment but under section 143(1), the stand of the assessee has been accepted. Thus on the strength of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh, Agra -vs.- CIT reported in 193

BOMBAY PLAZA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

section 27(iiib) of the Act does not arise at all. 6. Without prejudice to our above claim that the assessee is not assessable to 'Income from house property' as it is neither an owner nor a deemed owner, the Assessee further submitted that the Assessee was formed with the main objectives of carrying on the business of an investment

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The AO is directed to allow the deduction for such interest since the borrowed funds were used for business purposes. [The additional ground of appeal thus having become infructuous is dismissed].” 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Suffice to say, it has been elaborately discussed

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]

section 80-IB(10)(a) of the Act is "shall", but it would not necessarily mean that in every case, it shall be taken to be mandatory requirement instead would depend upon the intent of the Legislature and not the language in which the provision is clothed. The meaning and the intent of the Legislature would be gathered

M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Properties; [2012] 206 Taxmann 584 (Bom.) 6 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd  Viswas Promoters P. Ltd. v. ACIT; [2013] 29 taxmann.com 19 (Madras)  Madanlal Gupta vs. CIT 9 Taxmann.com 235  ACIT vs. Ashiana Amar Developers, 178 TTJ 424 (ITAT Kolkata)  CBDT Circular No. 205/3/2001/ITA-II dated 4th May 2001  Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. DCIT

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

House property' has been upheld. All the expenses allowable has already been considered by the AO by allowing deductions u/s 24(a) and administrative expenses and financial charges ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, no other expense is allowable. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is dismissed. In the result, the appeal

DCIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEWARI WAREHOUSING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Dcit, Circle-26 M/S Tewari Warehousing Co. बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan Hide Shed Dump, Old V/S. Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Goragacha Road, Kolkata-88 Road, (South), [Pan No.Aacft 5579 K] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Vikash Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit, Range- 53, Kolkata U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Entire Gross Receipts S Business Income & Allow Deductions As Per Section 28 To 43 Of The It Act When Rental Income Of Rs.2,31,00,000/- Was Already Included In The Gross Receipts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Estimation Of Business Profits Of Rs.2,37,72,132/- Made By The Ao Though Rejection Of Assessee’S Books Of Account U/S 145(3) Considering The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Contrary To The Law & Fact Of The Case. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To, Add To, Alter Or Modify Any One Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Above.”

House Property. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that it is providing complex & composite services such as packing, blending, storing, transporting along with other adequate facilities such as security, wooden pallets to keep the goods safe and under hygienic conditions to the parties. Thus, the predominant object

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S GANGADHAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property” and accordingly the deduction availed u/s 24(a) or u/s.,24(b) is inadmissible and is liable to be disallowed. In the course of hearing, the above facts were brought to the notice of A/R of the assessee. After going through these facts, the A/R of the assessee also realized that all these years, the assessee was claiming

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

193 ITR 321 (SC), wherein it was held that though the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to Income Tax proceedings, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year, where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

193 ITR 321 (SC), wherein it was held that though the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to Income Tax proceedings, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year, where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATQ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

section 43(5) but it is to be taxed as profit on sale of right as income of the assessee. Thus Ground No. 6 to 8 are dismissed.” 2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has shown the rental income under the head house property and claimed standard deduction

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1309/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maa Amba Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aaecm 6507 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 22 of the Act and held that the warehouse was a property owned by the assessee and not used for business and therefore the income earned from letting out was in nature of ‘house property’ income. According to ld AO, it makes no difference if the assessee is formed with the object of developing & operating landed properties

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)

Section 55(2)(a) of the act even speaks of the cost of acquisition of such tenancy rights for the purpose of computation of capital gains on transfer thereof. However, in the agreement that the assessee company entered into with PRIL, it has been specifically provided that the user of the services provided by the owner shall not have

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

193/-.” Aggrieved, now revenue as well as assessee came in appeal before Tribunal against restriction of disallowance at 1%. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that for the relevant AY 2007-08 Rule 8D is not applicable because the same was introduced by the I. T. (5th amendment) Rules

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

193/-.” Aggrieved, now revenue as well as assessee came in appeal before Tribunal against restriction of disallowance at 1%. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that for the relevant AY 2007-08 Rule 8D is not applicable because the same was introduced by the I. T. (5th amendment) Rules