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)

216 ITR 376 (Bom), it was held that Section 54 of the Act has to be construed in the context of the manner in which residential properties are now being constructed in a city like Bombay where, looking to the cost of the land, co-operative housing

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

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]

Properties (supra). As per the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, 23 I.T.A No.1514/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 1515/Kol/2015 A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. construction of even one building with several residential units of the prescribed size would constitute a 'housing project' for the purposes of s. 80-IB(10) of the Act. 30. From the aforesaid

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

section 54F of the Act are enclosed herewith and marked as perAnnexure-F." 5.3 From the above submission, it is clear that the issue whether the booking of flat made by the assessee with Sahara Grace, Gurgaon in F.Y.2003-04 was for construction of flat or was for purchase of ready built house, had never been under his consideration

ITO, WARD - 2(3), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

216 ITR 376], he contended that the only requirement for claiming exemption under section 54F is to make the investment in purchase of a residential house and there is no requirement that the construction of the new house should be completed within that period and the assessee gets possession of the said flat. As regards the other reasons given

ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT MADHU DEVI SARAF, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

House Property income at R.4,20,000/- without any logic or on the basis of any documents instead of Rs.8,40,000/- determining on the basis of report of Departmental inspector. (iv) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at any time of hearing.” Shri Arinram Bhattacharjee, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf

DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AVANTHA REALTY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi & On Considering The Facts & Circumstances, The Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi Was Pleased To Hold That The Delay Of 19 Days Is Not Extraordinary & Explanation Offered By The Appellant-Revenue To Be Plausible & On Merits. The Hon’Ble High Court Was Pleased To Set Aside The Order Passed By This Tribunal & Restored The Appeal To The File Of This Tribunal For Disposal In Accordance With Law. Therefore The Delay Of 19 Days Are Condoned.

house property’ by increasing annual value of the rented properties and reducing the deduction for interest. The reduction in the deduction claimed for interest has not been disputed by the appellant in the present appeal. Thus, the only dispute is regarding annual value taken. It is seen that the assessing officer has, on this issue, followed the assessment order

SRI SANJIV DUA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House Property would be arrived at Rs.2,13,216. In my considered view, therefore the addition made by the Ld AO is confirmed to this extent of Rs.2,13,216 and the balance stands deleted.” 5. Before us the ld. AR Shri Amit Saraf, FCA submits that the municipal value as determined by the Municipal authority is to be taken

ESJAY COMMERCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

house property as reported in the return. However, while computing the income from business and profession instead of reducing the rental income of Rs.72,30,427/-, CPC, Bengaluru reduced the amount of Rs.62,14,211/- from the net profit which has resulted in the increase in income from the business and profession by Rs.10,16,216/-. Aggrieved, assessee went

RAJ KUMAR GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

216/- whereas as per the provisions of section 57 of the Act the assessee entitled to claim the expenses @ 4.79% on the interest-bearing fund Rs. 15.27 Crores inter-alia on which an interest income of Rs. 73.14 lakh was earned by the appellant. The appellant submitted that he has substantial own fund of Rs. 38.36 crore

ACIT, CIR-31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property, income from other source and business income and it is only shown for complying with the statutory requirements which govern the housing board. The financial statements are prepared after complying with the legal requirements but from the operational point of view all the income, disclosed under whatever head are the integral parts of its only business i.e housing project

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GUINESS SECURITES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1712/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

house property", "Capital gains" and "Income from other sources": (b) a company the principal business of which is the business of banking (c) a company whose principal business of which is granting of loans and advances. It can also be seen from Sec.73(1) of the Act that any loss, computed in respect of a speculation business carried

KAUSHAL KISHORE BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-45(1), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

property, capital gains & income from other sources. The assessee has been investing in shares from which it earns long term and short term capital gain. In the current year, the assessee has claimed a deduction u/s 10(38) of Rs.3,66,536/- on account of long term capital gain/loss on listed securities. This capital gain included a long term capital

M/S AKANKSHA VINIYOG LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD -1(4), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2006-07

House Property'. The 'Other Income' comprised of interest, dividend and profit on sale of ITA No.1555/Kol/2016 Akanksha Viniyog Ltd. A.Y.2006-07 mutual funds and derivatives. The examination of the Schedule-6 to the Balance Sheet revealed that the assessee had claimed its holding of shares, mutual funds, & derivatives as Investment and not as Stock-in-Trade. The AO therefore came

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, capital gains and other sources like dividend and interest from bank etc. He was one of the working partners of a partnership firm M/s Saltee Estate which was subjected to tax audit u/s 44AB of the Act during the year. As such the due date of filing the return of income for the assessee (being a partner

SHRI JYOTI MOHAN MALL,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOL - XV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Year:2003-04

house property, capital gain and other sources for the year under consideration. A search & seizure operation was conducted on 30-06-2003 ITA No.819/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 Sh. Jyoti Mohan Mall vs. CIT, XV, Kol. Page 2 and on subsequent date on the MALL GROUP of cases. The assessee is a member of the group. During the period of search

SUGAM GRIHA NIRMAAN LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

properties on the date of registration as per page 2 of the assessment order. It was submitted that the agreements are available and also the issue was raised before the Ld. AO. Our attention was drawn to page 2 of the paper book filed which is the copy of submission dated 24.04.2021 from page 1 to 3 of the paper

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

house at Ashray,a 78 Hatkesh Society, 9th Road, JVPD scheme, Vile Parie West, Mumbai-49 is udner “pagdri” system , and I have no other immovable property. My brother Shri Pradeep P Sureka has flat in his name in Pune. This office premise at Room No.53/54, 3rd floor, 63/71. Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 is in the name