SRI PRADEEP SINGH GURUNG,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section 54 of the Act should within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place, purchase or within a period of three years after the date constructed one residential house in India then only the assessee qualifies for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. According

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

section 54F of the Act that the assessee was having three residential properties is erroneous. The property at Sector 39, Noida was sold and capital gain has been computed by the ld AO only on that property. Hence the said property should be obviously excluded while determining the number of properties held by the assessee. If 10 11 Sri Jagdish

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

housing project" as referring to construction of any building and the wordings in Section 80IB(10) of the Act. In the circumstances, we hold that the mere fact that one of the blocks have units exceeding built-up area of 1500 sq.ft, per se, would not result in nullifying the claim of the assessee for the entire projects. Consequently

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

SHREE KUMAR BANGUR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

house property after reducing Rs.1,55,159 from the assessee’s share of gross rent of the property. The alternative submission of the assessee to allow deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act @ 30% of Rs 1,55,159 is rejected accordingly” 5. The Ld. AR also pointed out that in the assessee’s own case

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR- 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 115JB of the Act per se would not be applicable to the assessee bank for the Asst Year 2009-10 and hence there is no question of making any addition to the book profits u/s 115JB towards disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 6. The other ground

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

property reported in TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during

SINGHI & CO.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Vs Singhi & Co., Acit, 1B, Old Post Office Street, Circle-54, 54/1, Rafi Kolkata-700001. Ahmed Kidwai Road, Pan-Aasfs9578D Kolkata-700016. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Respondent By Sh. Pradip Majumden, Addl. Cit. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

house property as it was not owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the AO. Before us, Ld.AR placed reliance in the case of Raj Daddarkar & Associates of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.-6455-6460 of 2017 and prayed

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

234 ITR 828 (AAR) is not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case as the AAR only dealt with the applicability of section 115JA of the Act on foreign companies. The term 'company' has been defined in section 5(d) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to mean any company as defined in section 3 of Companies

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

property. Therefore, because of the aforesaid technical compulsions, the house was constructed first and then transferred in the name of the assessee. However, the construction was made out of the investment of the assessee, which was not disputed. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the provisions of section 54F are beneficial provision for permitting purchase/construction

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property held in trust being a part of the corpus of the Wakf and that the activity of the mehmansari is the principal object behind the creation of the Wakf. III. For that the Ld. C.I.T.(A) grossly erred both in law and in fact by confirming addition of Rs.1,32,744/- towards mutwalli allowance on the alleged ground that

M/S AMARDEEP CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, W-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

234 ITR 308 (Kar). Accordingly the ld AO treated the sum of Rs.1,22,400/- being the interest income on fixed deposits on accrual basis and brought the difference of Rs. 1,13,467/- ( 1,22,400-8,933) to tax. 2.2. Before the ld CITA, the assessee argued that interest on fixed deposits accrue from year to year

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

House property 2,21,970/- 6. Long term C.G. (exempted) (22,78,940/-) 7. Share profit fro firm (exempted) (33,30,028/-) 8. Short term C.G. 57,941/- The relevant extract of the reply placed on page 10A of the paper book is reproduced below. “the calculation of capital gains is enclosed.” We also note that the assessee has furnished

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

234). (10) Copy of letter dated 17.10.2006 given by Dehradun Tea Co. Ltd. to the Calcutta Stock Exchange Asson. Ltd. regarding share price (pb 235). (11) Valuation Report of the property of Dehra Dun Tea Co. Ltd. dated. 7th July, 2006 signed by M/s Vishva Mitra Kain of Krishna Consultants Govt. registered and approved valuer (pb 236). (12) Copy

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

property and its agricultural use need to be ascertained by the AO with reference to the documents and earlier year records. Accordingly the ld. CIT(A) disregarded the submission of the assessee by holding as under : “In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that owing to the omission on the part of the AO to conduct

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

houses within country and abroad. The ICC was set up with the sole purpose of promotion and protection of Indian business and industry and was duly registered u/s 12A of the Act as a charitable association with the main objects as set out in Clause 3 of MAA of the assessee company as “to promote and protect the trade, commerce

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

houses within country and abroad. The ICC was set up with the sole purpose of promotion and protection of Indian business and industry and was duly registered u/s 12A of the Act as a charitable association with the main objects as set out in Clause 3 of MAA of the assessee company as “to promote and protect the trade, commerce

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