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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice. 2. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in denying the deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that the appellant did not deposit the sale proceeds of his old property

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 250(4) of the Act, the Id CIT (A) did not conduct further inquiry to establish whether expenditure is in the nature of Revenue or Capital. It is settled position of law that a lot of factors would determine whether the expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. It is seen in the said Annexure that the assessee

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 250(4) of the Act, the Id CIT (A) did not conduct further inquiry to establish whether expenditure is in the nature of Revenue or Capital. It is settled position of law that a lot of factors would determine whether the expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. It is seen in the said Annexure that the assessee

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 dated 25.09.2025. Since the issues are common or related, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 dated 25.09.2025. Since the issues are common or related, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 dated 25.09.2025. Since the issues are common or related, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by setting aside the assessment to the Learned Assessing Officer for fresh assessment under the powers of Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by setting aside the assessment to the Learned Assessing Officer for fresh assessment under the powers of Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Properties vs. Director of Income-tax (supra). The contention of the assessee in this case was that, the order framed on the directions given by the DDIT u/s 144A of the Act, could not be revised u/s 263 of the Act, as to the extent, the Assessing Officer could not be said to have applied his mind. The Tribunal held

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-23(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDIP ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

250 and completed assessment accordingly Whether since assessee inflated market value of property as on 1- 4-1981 with motive of avoiding capital gain, action of Assessing Officer in ITA No.2864/Kol/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO Ward-23(3), Kol. vs. Sudip Roy Page 5 making reference to DVO while not accepting valuation shown by assessee on basis of registered valuer’s report

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 05.03.2024. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 24 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appellate order was noticed by the concerned person late and since

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.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 27/09/2018, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, house property and other sources. He filed his return of income for the impugned Assessment Year on 30/03/2014 electronically declaring total income of Rs.12,39,440/-. 3. I have heard rival contentions

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 26/02/2020, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts in brief:- A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 13/12/2012 by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, at the residences and various business premises of Ramkrishna Forging Ltd. and others. A search and seizure operation

KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

House” 14, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700019 Telephone: 2287-3067/8737/1816 Fax No.: (033) 2287-2577/7089 KPLC/IT/2018-19 August 24, 2023 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-l Coimbatore Dear Sir, PAN: AABCK3342D ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DIN: ITBA/APL/F/APL 1/2023-24/1055203146(1), DATED 17/08/2023 2 Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. APPEAL NO, CIT(A), Kolkata-4/10179/2019-20 This has reference

M/S. KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BUDBUD, BURDWAN (EAST) vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 106/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S. Kalyan Educational Society,..............Appellant Budbud Bye Pass (North), Distg. Bardhaman-713403 [Pan: Aabtk2860K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, Durgapur, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Smt. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2020-21. 1 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/s. Kalyan Educational Society 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in the Memorandum of Appeal:- (1) That on the facts of the case and in law, the learned CPCerred in not allowing the capital expense of Rs.64

M/S IFGL REFRACTORIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,(OSD)-WARD-6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

House 3, Netaji Subhas Road Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AABCI 7391 C] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Ward-6(2) Kolkata…............……..…....Respondent Appearances by: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT, D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 19th, 2020 Date of pronouncing

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee is a company and is in the business of infrastructure development and construction of commercial, residential and township projects. It filed its return of income electronically on 12/10/2010, declaring Nil income. The profit earned by the company of Rs.4

HARIT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the AY 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- AY 2014-15 Harit Properties P.Ltd. Page 2 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming