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 has to be offered to tax on receipt basis only and not on the basis of accrual. The stand taken by the Assessee in this regard is not legally correct in the light of the provisions of Sec.22 and 23 of the Act, which we have discussed in the earlier part of this order. This is claim made

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 80-IB(10)(a) of the Act is "shall", but it would not necessarily mean that in every case, it shall be taken to be mandatory requirement instead would depend upon the intent of the Legislature and not the language in which the provision is clothed. The meaning and the intent of the Legislature would be gathered

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

Properties; [2012] 206 Taxmann 584 (Bom.) 6 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd  Viswas Promoters P. Ltd. v. ACIT; [2013] 29 taxmann.com 19 (Madras)  Madanlal Gupta vs. CIT 9 Taxmann.com 235  ACIT vs. Ashiana Amar Developers, 178 TTJ 424 (ITAT Kolkata)  CBDT Circular No. 205/3/2001/ITA-II dated 4th May 2001  Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. DCIT

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

house property, long term capital gain (LTCG), short term capital gain (STCG) and other sources”. During the year under consideration, assessee failed to disclose certain income in her return of income and for the same the AO has made the addition in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The detail of such income

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 by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to show-cause notice issued during the course of the said proceedings was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer, he imposed a penalty of Rs.66

SATTAR ALI,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show-cause notices issued during the course of said proceedings was not found acceptable by him, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.8,41,190/- under section

ITO, WD-30(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S S. L. D. CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Accordingly, Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

274/-. Notices under Sections 143(2) and 115WE(2) of the Act were issued. In response, the A/R representing the assessee filed details in support of his contention. The AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.90,75,170 vide its order dated 29.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act and made additions on account of income from house

ACIT, CIR-I, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. MRS HARMEET KAUR, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

274 (Gauhati) respectively. In view of the above, we find that due date for furnishing the return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act is subject to the extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act. Consequently, the question of law is answered 4 Mrs. Harmeet Kaur A.Yr.11-12 against

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

properties one in Delhi and another in Kolkata as mentioned above and the capital gain pertinent to the above transaction was computed at Rs. 44,09,184/- u/s 50C . As per provision of section 54, the capital gain will be exempted for taxation if the assessee has within a period of one year before and two years after the date

M/S AKANKSHA VINIYOG LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD -1(4), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2006-07

House Property'. The 'Other Income' comprised of interest, dividend and profit on sale of ITA No.1555/Kol/2016 Akanksha Viniyog Ltd. A.Y.2006-07 mutual funds and derivatives. The examination of the Schedule-6 to the Balance Sheet revealed that the assessee had claimed its holding of shares, mutual funds, & derivatives as Investment and not as Stock-in-Trade. The AO therefore came

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as the Cross objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

house construction, payment made for car parking space, profit from sale of land at Rajarhat investment made to various parties on interest etc. According to AO, the assessee has, in his original return of income, not disclosed flats and parking along with cash payment for purchase of immovable assets. When the L/H of the assessee confronted with the seized aforementioned

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

M/S CELICA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - VI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and revenue are dismissed

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

274/- Less: Income bearing investment Rs. 4,24,02,002/- Rs.218,66,34,272/- Average value of investment Rs.109,33,17,136/- 0.5% thereon comes to Rs.54,66,586/-.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who following the order of earlier assessment year deleted the disallowance vide para 4 as under: “4. Ground no. 2 relates to the disallowance

D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CELICA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and revenue are dismissed

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

274/- Less: Income bearing investment Rs. 4,24,02,002/- Rs.218,66,34,272/- Average value of investment Rs.109,33,17,136/- 0.5% thereon comes to Rs.54,66,586/-.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who following the order of earlier assessment year deleted the disallowance vide para 4 as under: “4. Ground no. 2 relates to the disallowance

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 - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

house property' is a loss, in respect of the assessment years commencing on 1st day of April, 1995 and the 1st day of April, 1996, such loss shall be first set off under sub- sections (1) and (2) and thereafter the loss referred to in section 71A shall be set off in the relevant assessment year in accordance with

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)

house property, capital gains and other sources like dividend and interest from bank etc. He was one of the working partners of a partnership firm M/s Saltee Estate which was subjected to tax audit u/s 44AB of the Act during the year. As such the due date of filing the return of income for the assessee (being a partner