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

47,07,00,000 5,15,00,000 1,15,00,000 u/s 2(22)(e) PF and ESI u/s - 27,126 53,507 34,631 2(24)(x) Disallowance of - - 4,23,358 91,306 Interest on IT, ST & TDS 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the issues, which

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

47,07,00,000 5,15,00,000 1,15,00,000 u/s 2(22)(e) PF and ESI u/s - 27,126 53,507 34,631 2(24)(x) Disallowance of - - 4,23,358 91,306 Interest on IT, ST & TDS 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the issues, which

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

47,07,00,000 5,15,00,000 1,15,00,000 u/s 2(22)(e) PF and ESI u/s - 27,126 53,507 34,631 2(24)(x) Disallowance of - - 4,23,358 91,306 Interest on IT, ST & TDS 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the issues, which

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) and u/s 142(1) of the Act along with\nquestionnaire were issued and served to the assessee. The reason\nfor selection in scrutiny in this case was large deduction claimed\nu/s 54F of the Act. The assessee during the year had sold\n36,00,000 shares of Emami Ltd. on 13.07.2020at total sale\nconsideration

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITMAN COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(47)(v) of the Act would take place until the builder constructed the said property and handed over portion of the same to the assessee as per terms of agreement. Some relevant portions from another case of Pr. CIT vs. Emporis Properties (P.) Ltd. reported in [2023] 458 ITR 68 (Calcutta) deserve to be extracted: “■ From the Joint

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

2)(x) of the Act was wholly unjustified and the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 passed under section 263 of the Act is invalid and deserved to be quashed. The ld. A.R. in support of his argument relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO –vs.- DG Housing Projects Limited reported

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

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

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

housing or real estate land and property authorities. authorities. 24 Capital Investment Leasehold properties Purchasing a freehold may require less initial property requires a capital investment larger upfront capital compared to investment. purchasing a freehold property. 25 Flexibility Leasehold properties Freehold properties offer less flexibility as provide more flexibility the lessee is bound by as the owner has the terms

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

47,506/-, none of which were directly relatable to the principal business activities of the assessee and formed part of ineligible income for the purpose of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Another sum of Rs. 7,53,134/- shown under the head ‘sundries’ was also treated as ineligible for the purpose of deduction under section

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

house before accounting year 2014-15 then no income could be deemed on account of lower payment of purchase price. In support of his contention, he filed a Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 401/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asha Vijay. paperbook and placed on record six decisions. According to him, in all these decisions it has been laid down

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

property and utilises the money for acquiring a plot for the construction of the house and if facts and circumstances point out that assessee intended to construct the house, which has been found so, then it is clear that he wants to avail exemption as provided under the law. Now if the developerafter receiving the money could not fulfill

ANIL KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 24 of the IT Act, only 30% standard deduction is allowable from the said rental income. It was also seen from records that during the earlier A.Y 2016-17 the assessee has shown house property income of Rs.31,50,284/- being the amount of rent from commercial complex and tower account. 3. The AO completed the assessment by allowing

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [PAN:AADCT0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances by: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate/Shri Sunil Surana, C.A., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Arup Chatterjee, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [PAN:AADCT0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances by: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate/Shri Sunil Surana, C.A., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Arup Chatterjee, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [PAN:AADCT0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances by: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate/Shri Sunil Surana, C.A., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Arup Chatterjee, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [PAN:AADCT0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances by: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate/Shri Sunil Surana, C.A., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Arup Chatterjee, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing