SUGAM REALTY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

houses had been let. (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-21, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.857/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukesh Kr. Agarwal Vs. P.C.I.T – 21, Kolkata 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 116/1, Girish Ghosh Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata – Liluah, Howrah-711204. 700014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapa 7519D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Respondent By :Md. Usman, Cit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 03.03.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Lncome Tax - 21, Kolkata Under Section 263 Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 27Th March, 2015 Passed By The Lncome Tax Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Is Without Jurisdiction, Against Law & Facts Of The Case & Therefore Illegal & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

Property has not been treated notionally u/ s 23(1), as if such house has been Let-out as required u/ s 23(4)(b) of the Act. The provisions of section 23(4)(b) of the Act have not been applied and the genuineness of Gross Rent received have not been examined; and (ii) Income from other sources

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) ..

5 Falcon Vincon Private Limited from House Property” or under the head “Income from business or profession”? The stand of the ld PCIT is that rental income should be assessable under the head “Income from business or profession” whereas the stand of the assessee is that it should be assessable under the head ““Income from House Property”. First

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

sections 23 & 24 of the Income Tax Act and further prayed that an opportunity may be provided to place the 3 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Padmalochanan Radhakrishnan necessary documents in support of the claim of interest expenditure incurred towards purchase of house property before the ld. Assessing Officer for necessary verification. 5

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

House Property”. The AO is accordingly directed to assess the service charges as business income and allow the expenses as claimed by the appellant against it. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are therefore allowed.” 5 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. 5. The learned DR strongly relied

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

House Property”. The AO is accordingly directed to assess the service charges as business income and allow the expenses as claimed by the appellant against it. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are therefore allowed.” 5 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. 5. The learned DR strongly relied

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

House Property”. The AO is accordingly directed to assess the service charges as business income and allow the expenses as claimed by the appellant against it. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are therefore allowed.” 5 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. 5. The learned DR strongly relied

ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAGHU NANDAN MODI, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property had to be computed on the basis of the sum for which the property might reasonably be let from year to year and the annual municipal value. ITA No.2186-87/Kol/2014 & CO 03-04/Kol/2015 A.Ys. 10-11 & 11-12 ITO Wd-36(1) Kol. Vs. Raghu Nanda Modi Page 11 Following the Calcutta High Court decision (1983) 1411TR

E M C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

5 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited return filed by it. The ld. Assessing Officer however refused to take the same as a business income and assessed it as a house property income. The appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) brought relief to the assessee and income was assessed as a business income. 9. The Revenue took the issue before the Tribunal

DILIP KUMAR CHOWDHARY ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2460/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dilip Kumar Chowdhary………….…………………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant 545, G.T. Road (South) 6Th Floor Howrah – 711 101 [Pan : Acdpc 4418 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-46, Kolkata……........................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

house is actually let’. This also shows that the expression ‘property is let’ cannot mean actual letting out of the property because had it been so, there was be no need to use the word ‘actually’ in sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act. Applying the purposive interpretation, the expression ‘property is let’ has to be read

LOHIA SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 487/Kol/2012 A.Y 2008-09 M/S. Lohia Securities Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Kolkata Pan: Aaacl 5834A (Appellant) (Respondent)

23,56,409.75 Purchases 2,24,74,30,512.74 Closing Stock 5,50,63,313.42 Total 2,30,11,09,755.20 Total 2,24,74,19,723.17 Loss = Rs.5,36,90,032 The assessee claimed that its case falls under the proviso (b) and (c) to section 43(5) of the Act. 2.3. The Learned AO observed that proviso

BIP DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 24 of the Act and also allow the claim of the assessee for business expenses under various heads after verifying the same in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ganga Properties Limited (supra). Grounds No. 2, 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 are thus

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

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

house property is to be made as per sections 23(b) & 23(c) which prescribe actual rent received or receivable' as the basis. The assessee’s explanation is therefore unacceptable. It can not therefore be denied that there has been concealment of particulars of income in respect of rent in the original return and penalty

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]

5 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 CIT(A) held that in terms of the said Development Agreement the appellants had transferred their right, title & interest in land in favour of the Developer when possession of the property was delivered for carrying out Development of the property. In the opinion of Ld. CIT(A) in terms

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]

5 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 CIT(A) held that in terms of the said Development Agreement the appellants had transferred their right, title & interest in land in favour of the Developer when possession of the property was delivered for carrying out Development of the property. In the opinion of Ld. CIT(A) in terms

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

23 Governing Authority Leasehold properties Freehold properties are may be subject to the subject to the jurisdiction and jurisdiction and regulations of the local regulations of the local 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1325/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Madhu Devi Saraf [Pan: Alips 0989 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 23(5) is reproduced herein below: “5. Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property