RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since rental income from the said property has been computed by applying the provisions to section 22 to 27

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since rental income from the said property has been computed by applying the provisions to section 22 to 27

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since rental income from the said property has been computed by applying the provisions to section 22 to 27

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since rental income from the said property has been computed by applying the provisions to section 22 to 27

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

house property income or a business income. As far as the issue is concerned, we deem it appropriate to take note the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Limited 9 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited reported in 263 ITR 143. Hon’ble Court, however, considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

house property has not been controvertd by giving any proof or otherwise. According to him, the claim of depreciation on this property is not allowable since rental income from the said property has been computed by applying the provisions to section 22 to 27

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SATURDAY CLUB LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

section 22 income from house property is liable to the taxed. The income that the club had made in the instant case was from letting out the rooms. The income was derived from providing many facilities to the members including accommodation. Neither the club nor the members had treated these facilities separately and the department could not also treat them

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

section 22 income from house property is liable to the taxed. The income that the club had made in the instant case was from letting out the rooms. The income was derived from providing many facilities to the members including accommodation. Neither the club nor the members had treated these facilities separately and the department could not also treat them

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

section 22 income from house property is liable to the taxed. The income that the club had made in the instant case was from letting out the rooms. The income was derived from providing many facilities to the members including accommodation. Neither the club nor the members had treated these facilities separately and the department could not also treat them

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

house rent property income or rent taken by him while leasing out this property. In other words, ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that this interest expenditure should have been adjusted under section 57 of the Income Tax Act and it is not admissible to the assessee in the computation made under section 48 of the Income

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

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. purchasing a freehold property. 25 Flexibility Leasehold properties Freehold properties offer less flexibility as provide more flexibility the lessee is bound by as the owner has the terms

JANAMANGAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,HALDIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janamangal Samabay Krishi Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(1), Unnayan Samity Limited Vs Haldia Dharmadasbar, Contai Purba Medinipur - 721401 [Pan : Aabaj2517P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Deduction U/S 80P For Whole Of The Profit Of Rs. 65,16,054/ For Business Of Banking/Providing Credit Facility Was Not Allowed As Per Order U/S 250 By The Ld. Cit Appeal Nfac, Of Appellant Assessee Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited A Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act Engage In The Business Of Supporting Agricultural Development. As Per Order U/S 250 A Proportion Of This Profit Was Allowed U/S 80P Of Rs. 22,65,866/ By Disallowing The Balance Amount Of Rs. 42,50,188/ Without Allowing The Deduction U/S Sop. The Basis Of Proportion For Allowance & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Clear To The Assessee. According To The Assessee Cost & Profit Allocation Should Be Based On Allocation Of Fund To Deposit Investment & Loan Disbursement. Therefore Assessee Is Completely Disagreed With The Opinion & Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal U/S 250 & Preferred For Appeal To Tribunal.”

27(1), Unnayan Samity Limited Vs Haldia Dharmadasbar, Contai Purba Medinipur - 721401 [PAN : AABAJ2517P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The present

S.K.DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 S. K. Development Private Deputycommissioner Of Limited. Income-Tax,Circle- 5(1), Vs. 23A, N. S. Road, 10Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aadcs7398K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property income. 3 S.K. Development Private Limited AY: 2013-14 For the other component of Rs.3,65,700/-, Ld. Counsel referred to the details of its dealings in immovable properties during the year for which brokerage expenses were incurred. The details are tabulated as under: Brokerage charges against sale of space 01­Apr­2012 to 31­Mar­2013

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

27,832/-, the source of fund of the investment also remained unexplained due to paucity of the regular fund, only the corpus fund could explain the source of fund towards investment in mutual fund. It is pertinent to mention here that the corpus fund has been created by accumulation of money claimed as exempt

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

house on 03.10.2016 whereas the assessee sold the property on 09.12.2013. According to Ld. 6 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 AO, it meant that valuation was done after a lapse of three years from the transfer of property. Therefore, according to the Ld. CIT(A), the estimation of the cost of the property is not correct

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Developmвы Севраар Менца\nDinesh Chandra Halder\nAuthorised Representativa\n7. We have also perused the copy of the agreement which is attached at page no.15\nto 33 and thus, it is clear from the above that all payments were made through banking\nchannel right from the F.Y. 2012-13 to A.Υ. 2018-19. Therefore, conclusion drawn by\nthe

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.”

section 54F of the Act, the amount of consideration can be invested for purchase of house even the year prior to the date of sale of asset, hence it is not the same money but the amount equal to the net consideration received. 6.2 So far as the issue relating to belated transfer of the house in the name

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

27,325/- and other expenses are shown at ₹21,597/-, the major amount being accounting charges of ₹15,000/- and the profit before tax is shown at ₹5,728/- as per the statement of profit and loss account ended on 31/03/2012. In the fact sheet filed by the Ld. AR before us the following facts are mentioned which need