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

house property under section 22, The lift charges and air- conditioning charges, which had been shown separately in the ITO's order

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

house property so as to attract charge of tax under Section 22 read with Section 23 of the Act.” 32. We also

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) ..

house property are contained in Sections 22 to 27 of the Act and profits and gains of business or profession

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property on 29.3.2017 for a total cost of Rs.3,13,62,500/- as per details furnished herein below. The assessee had offered a long term capital gains of Rs.76,22,276/- in his return of income instead of his actual liability of Rs.44,63,518/- only as per provisions of section

SMT TARAMONI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

22 of the Act to point out that the annual value of property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is owner is chargeable to tax under the head “income from house property”. He contended that although the expression ‘buildings’ used in section

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since rental income from the said property has been computed by applying the provisions to section 22

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since rental income from the said property has been computed by applying the provisions to section 22

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since rental income from the said property has been computed by applying the provisions to section 22

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since rental income from the said property has been computed by applying the provisions to section 22

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

property for enabling company to secure bank loan. Here, it is clear that both the parties are benefited from the transaction. And if the transaction is mutual by which both parties are benefited, then Sec. 2(22)(e) will not attract. Therefore, the decision was given in favour of the assessee. But coming to the present case only the appellant

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since rental income from the said property has been computed by applying the provisions to section 22

OBEROI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1204/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2859E (Assessee) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Oberoi Buildings & Investments Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2860 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri A. K. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Acit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee(Group Companies` Appeals), Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, In Respect Of M/S Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Andm/S Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Which Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd.

house property". In response to this question, the assessee replied to the AO stating that in terms of section 22

OBEROI BUILDINGS & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1204/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2859E (Assessee) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Oberoi Buildings & Investments Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2860 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri A. K. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Acit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee(Group Companies` Appeals), Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, In Respect Of M/S Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Andm/S Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Which Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd.

house property". In response to this question, the assessee replied to the AO stating that in terms of section 22

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

22,83,278/- on account of service charges was brought to tax by him in the hands of the assessee. 4. The action of the A.O. in treating the service charges as income from house property instead of business income was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

22,83,278/- on account of service charges was brought to tax by him in the hands of the assessee. 4. The action of the A.O. in treating the service charges as income from house property instead of business income was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

22,83,278/- on account of service charges was brought to tax by him in the hands of the assessee. 4. The action of the A.O. in treating the service charges as income from house property instead of business income was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made