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

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

SHELTER PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (A)-XII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Housing Development Limited and no income accrued or received by the assessee under the agreement dt: 31-03-2009, as such, therefore, the said agreement can not be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and thus, the provisions of Section 2(47)(v

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

v. CIT [2014] 46 taxmann.com 300/225 Taxman 239/365 ITR 389 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the facts, wherein the assessee claimed the benefit under section 54 of the Act in respect of the capital gains arising from transfer of property vide sale deed registered on 24.09.2004, while the agreement to sell was executed on 27.09.2002, considered

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

property. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 35. We further note that identical view has been expressed by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the following cases holding that the flats which remained vacant and unsold, no deemed ALV thereof could be assessed as income u/s 23 of the Act. - C.R. Development

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)

2(14) of the Act, to mean property of any kind held by an assessee. But, when it comes to transfer for the purpose of levy of income-tax u/s2(47)(v), of the Act, the handing over of possession coupled with performance of the conditions specified in section 53A of T.P. Act, 1882 will be more relevant, hence

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)

2(14) of the Act, to mean property of any kind held by an assessee. But, when it comes to transfer for the purpose of levy of income-tax u/s2(47)(v), of the Act, the handing over of possession coupled with performance of the conditions specified in section 53A of T.P. Act, 1882 will be more relevant, hence

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

v. ITC Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 214 (Calcutta). This Bench of the Tribunal has considered this issue and in its order dt. 09/11/2016, ITA 399/Kol/2008 for Assessment Year 2004-05 & ITA No. 538/Kol/2008 for the Assessment Year 2004-05, has at para 6, held as follows:- "6. As far as Gr. No.1 of the revenue is concerned

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

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) ..

2 Falcon Vincon Private Limited 3. That without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds of appeal, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on a debatable issue as was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgement dated 20th March, 2019 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunil

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property without considering the facts that as per the said old agreement dt. 06.01.1975 between the assessee and the erstwhile owner M/s Murray & Co. Pvt. Ltd., duly authenticated and registered by a Notary, the assessee firm became the deemed owner of the property u/s 2(47)(v) of the I.Tax Act and accordingly the gain 1 loss on sale

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property without considering the facts that as per the said old agreement dt. 06.01.1975 between the assessee and the erstwhile owner M/s Murray & Co. Pvt. Ltd., duly authenticated and registered by a Notary, the assessee firm became the deemed owner of the property u/s 2(47)(v) of the I.Tax Act and accordingly the gain 1 loss on sale

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 ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

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 ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

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 ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

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 ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred