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.

section 23(2)(a) of the Act. With regard to the ALV of the property let out by assessee, it was submitted that the amount of actual rent received by assessee could only be taken to be ALV for the purposes of assessment of income under the head" House Property". The assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta

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]

Section 80IB(10) was claimed only in respect of the completed units. The claim was rejected principally on the ground that both the housing projects sanctioned simultaneously together constituted a single composite housing project and therefore deduction was not permissible since completion certificate for the entire housing project was not obtained by 21 I.T.A No.1514/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 1515/Kol/2015 A.Ys

VINODKUMAR HARSHAVARDHAN HUF,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-30, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

House Property’ which shows Ld. AO did not think it necessary to go through Return or Computation of income. Before making order u/s. 143(3). Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified and unfair in considering the Fair Market Rent at Rs.30,000/- per month each from two tenants. Notional interpretation of Fair Market Rent is totally unfair on part

OBEROI BUILDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 143(3) of the Act, following adjustments/additions has been made by the Assessing Officer. 1. Contribution from shops given on leave and license amounting to Rs.13,90,260/- was treated by the AO under the head 'Income from house property

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATQ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

260/- to Dalmia Jain Trust, Dalmia Manav Seva Trust, Vishwa kalyanSansthan and thus, net amount received by the assessee was ₹2,88,06,379/-, which is been offered to tax as income from the house property after claiming statutory deduction on account of Repairs @30% of Net lease rental for ₹83,38,635/-. According to the ld. AO the said

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

house rent. The facts are brought out at para 5.1 at page 16 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is extracted below: “5.1. In the computation of Income, the appellant company computed Gross Annual Value of the property situated at 13, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi at Rs. 30,000/- being the rent received by M/s. Gupta & Syal

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

house rent. The facts are brought out at para 5.1 at page 16 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is extracted below: “5.1. In the computation of Income, the appellant company computed Gross Annual Value of the property situated at 13, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi at Rs. 30,000/- being the rent received by M/s. Gupta & Syal

UMESH PRASAD SHAW ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1943/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Umesh Prasad Shaw…………………………..…..………………………………………….…….……...Appellant C/O. D.J. Shaw & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Adyps 6806 M] I.T.O. Ward-48(3), Kolkata………………………………………...……..……………………..…. Respondent Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Tauheed, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 23Rd, 2018 O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap :-

260/- to the total income of the assessee under the head “income from house property” in the assessment completed under Section

ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAKESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2008/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

section and it applies when the assessee's explanation with respect to the cash credit is rejected as being unsatisfactory and also where the assessee does not render any explanation. The Assessing Officer is to state how he has formed his opinion that the explanation is unsatisfactory. Hon'ble Courts have held that it is the bounden duty

SHRI PANKAJ JALAN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1923/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pankaj Jalan -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Actpj 8249 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and income from other sources. In the penalty order, the ld AO notes that during the course of post search operation, the assessee admitted an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,32,44,000/- for the Asst Year under consideration in the form of commodity profit vide disclosure petition 2 Pankaj Jalan A.Yr.2013-14 filed by him. Further

ASHOK VIKRAM PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

260/- vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO by citing the same reasons. However, in stead of addition u/s 69A ,the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to treat the same as unexplained investments u/s 69A of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No.1294/Kol/2023

M/S HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 48 of the Act. The Court held, dismissing the appeal that the sale proceeds received by the assessee were from sale of a going concern, which was a slump sale and not a sale of block of asset. 4 Hindustan Engg. & Ind. Ltd., AY 2009-10 33. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court ln Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Income

SMT SUSHMA TANDON,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 308/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2003-04 Smt. Sushma Tandon -Vs- Ito, Ward-45(2), Kolkata [Pan: Acypt 6306 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3)(ii)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 30.12.2010 for the Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. After hearing contentions of both the parties, I find that the assessee has assigned all her rights in her house property which is situated at 379, Block-FE at Sector-III, Salt Lake City Extension area

ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE CALCUTTA SWIMMING CLUB, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

260 days as per Ld. CIT(A) order, I would like to inform that the jurisdictional Pr. CIT, i.e. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata has certified that the said appellate order in Appeal No./DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048949643(1) dated 20.01.2023, in the case of Calcutta Swimming Club (PAN: AAAAT

RAHUL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-46, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

house is seen from pages 64-75 of the P.B. Pages 76-80 of the P.B are the copies of loan agreement with M/s. GRREPL. Another Paper book pages at 81-111, which are the copies of audited P & L account, Balance sheet of M/s. G.K. Ispat Ltd., ( source of source). From the aforesaid documents, it reveals that the assessee

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

house at Ashray,a 78 Hatkesh Society, 9th Road, JVPD scheme, Vile Parie West, Mumbai-49 is udner “pagdri” system , and I have no other immovable property. My brother Shri Pradeep P Sureka has flat in his name in Pune. This office premise at Room No.53/54, 3rd floor, 63/71. Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 is in the name

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

property to the tune of Rs 5,88,498/- for the Asst Year 2003-04. Similar disclosures were also made for the Asst Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 . The taxes together with interest were duly paid for these additional incomes offered for these three years. Out of this, the department did not initiate any action for the Asst Year

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

property to the tune of Rs 5,88,498/- for the Asst Year 2003-04. Similar disclosures were also made for the Asst Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 . The taxes together with interest were duly paid for these additional incomes offered for these three years. Out of this, the department did not initiate any action for the Asst Year