APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

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

15, 1992 reported in [1993] 67 TAXMAN 520 (KAR.), 201 ITR 138 (Kar) has held that it was impermissible to split up the consideration payable by the tenant to the landlord, one representing the 'income from house property' and the other to represent the income attributable to the amenities or services as alleged services were integrated with the property leased

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

House property in Singapore is not taxable in India under DTAA while as per Article 25 of DTAA, it is taxable in India. 3 M/s UCO Bank 10. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 relates to addition

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

15 constitutes a ‘housing project’ for the purposes of Section 80-IB(10) came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vishwas Promoters Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (29 taxmann.com 19) wherein the assessee had undertaken four projects which inter alia included Project ‘Vajra’ and ‘Agrini’ consisting several building blocks in which flats admeasuring

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house was being shown in the balance sheet of previous\nyear and he was not having two residential properties, but only some\naddition was done to the existing property. The Ld. AO has not\nmentioned the details of the property and the contention of the\nassessee is verified from the details filed before us. This fact could\nnot be rebutted

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]

15. Our foregoing conclusion finds support in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VsBalbir S. Maini (398 ITR 531) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as amended in 2001 and in the specific context of its application

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]

15. Our foregoing conclusion finds support in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VsBalbir S. Maini (398 ITR 531) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as amended in 2001 and in the specific context of its application

M/S CREDAI BENGAL,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years:2011-12

housing industry. The assessee is not providing assistance/ support services to any specified individual but to a section of the people, i.e. entrepreneurs/ investors in real estate industry. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the object of the assessee is for the benefit of a section of the community or a class identifiable by some common quality of public

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) ..

15. What is the test which has to be applied to determine whether the income would be chargeable under the head "income from the house property" or it would be chargeable under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", is the question. It may be mentioned, in the first instance, that merely because there is an entry

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act. In the present case before us, it is clear that the builder/developer has carried out construction of a residential scheme and he constructed residential apartments. Even the property identified and held by assessee was in the nature of house property and the said property was for the use of the assessee

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act. In the present case before us, it is clear that the builder/developer has carried out construction of a residential scheme and he constructed residential apartments. Even the property identified and held by assessee was in the nature of house property and the said property was for the use of the assessee

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

15,400/- (3) Property Rent Received NIL treated as self-occupied Less: HBL Rs.70,000/- Loss Rs.70,000/- 7. We further noticed that the ld. Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee is not permitted to adjust the house property loss except for the self-occupied property against other income. Provision of section 71 of the Act has a direct

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

house • Festival celebrations • Health Club • Any other club • Gifts • Scholarship to employees’ children • Consumption of fuel other than industrial fuel ITA No.1866/Kol/2014 A.Y.2006-07 : 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

house • Festival celebrations • Health Club • Any other club • Gifts • Scholarship to employees’ children • Consumption of fuel other than industrial fuel ITA No.1866/Kol/2014 A.Y.2006-07 : 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

house • Festival celebrations • Health Club • Any other club • Gifts • Scholarship to employees’ children • Consumption of fuel other than industrial fuel ITA No.1866/Kol/2014 A.Y.2006-07 : 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the learned