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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property’ and ‘other sources’. The Assessing Officer records at para 4 & 5 of his order as follows:- “4. ............They produced relevant evidences in support of the return of income which were seen and placed on record. 5. It is seen from the computation of total income filed along with the return of income that the assessee during the year

SHRI KAMAL KUMAR BANSAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

house property” on account of disallowance of property tax. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated

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

House Property” and subsequently the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of various expenses was restricted by him determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,43,020/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

house property is to be made as per sections 23(b) & 23(c) which prescribe actual rent received or receivable' as the basis. The assessee’s explanation is therefore unacceptable. It can not therefore be denied that there has been concealment of particulars of income in respect of rent in the original return and penalty u/s 271

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

property, the assessee was not entitled to anything over and above the agreed rent. The said action of the AO has resulted in taxing notional income in the hands of the assessee, which never accrued and hence cannot be brought to tax. Accordingly, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and hence

PARAKH KOTHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 57. The condition for claiming any deduction u/s.57 is that the expense should be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. On perusal of schedule 12 of the accounts of the appellant, the details of receipts declared under the head 'other sources' are as follows:- Interest received on Fixed Deposits - Rs.l

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

271(1)(c) of the Act is required to be deleted. With regard to the deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed in the return of income u/s 24(b) of the Act on account of payment of interest on housing loan, the ld. AR submits that deduction was available only in respect of loan taken for purchase of house property

DR. KALYAN CHAUDHURI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-19(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

house property and Rs. 62,097/- as interest from bank by not showing the above income in return of income filed originally by the appellant. Therefore, I am agree with the view that the AO rightly imposed the penalty of Rs. 28,773/- u/s. 271 (1 )(c ) of the IT Act. Hence, I confirm the penalty imposed

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

house when the building went for re-development. Now the question before is whether the compensation upon re-development of property towards hardship, rehabilitation and shifting received by the assessee is taxable if the potential TDR/FSI is available to the land owner or society which owns the land depending upon the terms of the re-development agreement without transferring

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

House Property. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred by not appreciating the facts that the assessee Page 3 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 977/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 AMRI Hospitals Ltd. company was required to provide additional services and facilities other than just its property given on rent

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

271/- would be taxable as STCG @ 30% and not L TCG. This error in the assessment order is accepted. Stamp Duty value should have been-considered as full value of consideration for sale of house property for the purpose of section

RISHI KUMAR AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CC-XXII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Bench Is Squarely Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court. The Ld.Ar Submits That A Paper Book Containing Pages 1 To 44 Was Filed On 29- 03-2017 & Referred To Page No-7 Where A Copy Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court Was Placed & Urged The Bench To Allow The Appeal In Terms Of This Decision. We Find That The Issue Before Us Is Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows Supra & We Proceed To Hear The Case & Dispose Of The Same By Perusing The Material On Record. 3. The Only Issue Is To Be Decided As To Whether The Cit-A Justified In Confirming The Impugned Penalties Imposed By The Ao U/S. 271(1) (C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

house property and business. In response to notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed all the details as required by the AO. The AO accepted the said return as filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act and treated the same as undisclosed income as the assessee failed to file

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.07.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

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

271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40 a)(ia1 as they' existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee's tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss

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

SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property and capital gains etc. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.52,03,244/-. The AO S.A No. 22/Kol/2017 2 & ITA No.2183/Kol/2016 Satish Kumar Agarwal(HUF) determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,32,16,400/- vide his order dt. 23-02-2015. Against which the assessee preferred an appeal before

SRI SANJIV DUA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house(s) will be determined as per section 23 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The section 23 of I.T. Act provides that the annual value of property is deemed to be expected reasonable rent or rent received / receivable. The assessee has taken Flat L – 32, Mumbai as self occupied property. The assessee has submitted a written submission