Search: house property

ITA 666/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Section 80IA (4) (iii) save and except that if the commencement of the project is delayed beyond one year a fresh approval would have to be obtained to get the benefits under the Act. Dmt 35 wp744-11 The Court cannot also ignore the fact that the intent of the legislature and its executive is not to discontinue the benefits

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr

ITA 581/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Section 80IA (4) (iii) save and except that if the commencement of the project is delayed beyond one year a fresh approval would have to be obtained to get the benefits under the Act. Dmt 35 wp744-11 The Court cannot also ignore the fact that the intent of the legislature and its executive is not to discontinue the benefits

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr

ITA 813/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Section 80IA (4) (iii) save and except that if the commencement of the project is delayed beyond one year a fresh approval would have to be obtained to get the benefits under the Act. Dmt 35 wp744-11 The Court cannot also ignore the fact that the intent of the legislature and its executive is not to discontinue the benefits

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr

ITA 957/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Section 80IA (4) (iii) save and except that if the commencement of the project is delayed beyond one year a fresh approval would have to be obtained to get the benefits under the Act. Dmt 35 wp744-11 The Court cannot also ignore the fact that the intent of the legislature and its executive is not to discontinue the benefits

SHALINI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

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

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

house property of the assessee was not completed within the prescribed period, was of the view that the deduction allowed under section 54F was liable to be withdrawn in assessment year 2015-16 in which three years had expired from the date of transfer. He accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to tax the capital gains of Rs.77

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2098/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ITA 2100/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

house property income. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “… … it is seen that the real estate business is one of the dominant activities mentioned in the deed of partnership. It is also seen that the appellant has used its Vasant Vihar property of New Delhi

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ITA 2099/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

house property income. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “… … it is seen that the real estate business is one of the dominant activities mentioned in the deed of partnership. It is also seen that the appellant has used its Vasant Vihar property of New Delhi

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ITA 2097/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

house property income. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “… … it is seen that the real estate business is one of the dominant activities mentioned in the deed of partnership. It is also seen that the appellant has used its Vasant Vihar property of New Delhi

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ITA 401/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

house property income. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “… … it is seen that the real estate business is one of the dominant activities mentioned in the deed of partnership. It is also seen that the appellant has used its Vasant Vihar property of New Delhi

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S GANGADHAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

Section 24Section 250(4)Section 36(1)(iii)

251/- only. The assessee against such rental income claimed interest expenses of Rs. 5.14 crores u/s 24(b) of the Act. ITA No. 401/Kol/2016 & CO. 25/Kol/2016 A.Y 2011-12 DCIT Cir-1, Slg. Vs. M/s Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 However the AO was of the view that no deduction on account of interest expenses can be allowed

SHREE GURU REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

ITA 1081/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)Section 150Section 24

house property. 4. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving a direction to the A.O. u/s. 150 for verification of share capital and share premium amount raised by the assessee in the relevant year though the same was not the subject matter of the instant appeal

ITO WARD-41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAMAL BANERJEE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1580/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 251

251 of the Act granting relief to a tune of Rs.2,99,629/-. Matter reached ITAT in appeal and the ITAT by order dated 14.12.2007 remanded the matter to learned AO for fresh disposal after de novo consideration. Subsequently, pursuant to the orders of the ITAT, learned AO vide order dated 30.12.2008 made certain additions on account of rental income

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Property Invest (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 51 taxmann.com 387 (SC) viii. CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal) Accordingly, the Ld. AO concluded that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the amount receipt as share application totalling to Rs. 30,00,00,000/- had not been proved by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S PAWAN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2160/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr.Kureel, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate

Section 14ASection 24Section 73

251/- Less: Income taxable separately Rent : Rs.4,03,200/- Rs.48,78,051/- Less : Exempt income Dividend - 2,82,125 Tax free interest -2,94,975 : Rs.5,77,100/- Income from business : Rs.43,00,951/- Income from House Property Gross annual value -4,03,200 Less:deduction u/s 24(a) -1,20,960 : Rs.2,82,240/- Total Income : Rs45

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 230/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Debasish Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR

ITA 233/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

251(1)(a) of the Act.” The facts and circumstances are exactly identical and the grounds raised are identically worded except the amount, hence we will take the facts from AY 2007-08 and decide the issue. 12. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee company during FY 2006-07 relevant to this AY 2007-08 received advances from

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Debasish Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR

ITA 1041/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-2009

251(1)(a) of the Act.” The facts and circumstances are exactly identical and the grounds raised are identically worded except the amount, hence we will take the facts from AY 2007-08 and decide the issue. 12. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee company during FY 2006-07 relevant to this AY 2007-08 received advances from

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Debasish Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR

ITA 1030/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-2009

251(1)(a) of the Act.” The facts and circumstances are exactly identical and the grounds raised are identically worded except the amount, hence we will take the facts from AY 2007-08 and decide the issue. 12. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee company during FY 2006-07 relevant to this AY 2007-08 received advances from

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Debasish Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR