AADARSH LADDHA, LEGAL HEIR OF KAILASH CHAND LADDHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1013/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Aadarsh Laddha,………………….………...……Appellant (Legal Heir Of Kailash Chand Laddha) 31, Giri Babu Lane, Kolkata-700012, W.B. [Pan:Abapl2499R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-37(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Sidhharth Kejriwal, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the FY 2015- 16, the assessee was engaged in general commission agent, earned interest income and also trading in shares. In the instant case, the assessee carried the business of a commission agent and had disclosed gross receipts of Rs.67

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

1 and accordingly prayed that the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is without jurisdiction and is invalid. The Ld. AR submitted that the jurisdictional u/s. 263 of the Act is only available if the twin conditions as provided in section 263 of the Act i.e. first the assessment order has to be erroneous and second

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

1 and accordingly prayed that the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is without jurisdiction and is invalid. The Ld. AR submitted that the jurisdictional u/s. 263 of the Act is only available if the twin conditions as provided in section 263 of the Act i.e. first the assessment order has to be erroneous and second

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

1 and accordingly prayed that the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is without jurisdiction and is invalid. The Ld. AR submitted that the jurisdictional u/s. 263 of the Act is only available if the twin conditions as provided in section 263 of the Act i.e. first the assessment order has to be erroneous and second

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

1 and accordingly prayed that the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is without jurisdiction and is invalid. The Ld. AR submitted that the jurisdictional u/s. 263 of the Act is only available if the twin conditions as provided in section 263 of the Act i.e. first the assessment order has to be erroneous and second

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD ,IDEAL CENTRE vs. CIRCLE-7(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

282/- and assessed I.T.A. No. 817/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Maithan Ceramic Ltd. 2 income at Rs. 1,78,76,308/-. The assessee challenged the said additions/disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the following additions/disallowance confirmed by the ld. CIT(A):- (a) Foreign exchange

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

1,84,982/- under the head “income from house property”. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. As there was no compliance, the Assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee of interest paid of Rs.4,36,922/- claimed under section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

1,84,982/- under the head “income from house property”. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. As there was no compliance, the Assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee of interest paid of Rs.4,36,922/- claimed under section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

1,84,982/- under the head “income from house property”. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. As there was no compliance, the Assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee of interest paid of Rs.4,36,922/- claimed under section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

1,84,982/- under the head “income from house property”. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. As there was no compliance, the Assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee of interest paid of Rs.4,36,922/- claimed under section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee

RAHUL SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

1,28,17,282/- in respect of long term capital gain on sale of part of land at 52/5A in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.08.2014. 08. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to allow the deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. RAHUL SARAF, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

1,28,17,282/- in respect of long term capital gain on sale of part of land at 52/5A in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.08.2014. 08. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to allow the deduction

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

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

house at Nalla Fort was used during the relevant previous year for business related activities of the appellant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant and solely relying on the observations made by the Assessing Officer in relation to a previous year different from the previous year relevant to the assessment under

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

house at Nalla Fort was used during the relevant previous year for business related activities of the appellant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant and solely relying on the observations made by the Assessing Officer in relation to a previous year different from the previous year relevant to the assessment under

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

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

house at Nalla Fort was used during the relevant previous year for business related activities of the appellant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant and solely relying on the observations made by the Assessing Officer in relation to a previous year different from the previous year relevant to the assessment under

TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

1. Abhimanyu Viiicom 68 Lacs 7,01,01,031/- Copy of Auditor's Report (68) Private Limited (Page no. 72 Audited Balance Sheet (72), Bank AAICA7299J of the paper book) statement. (80), Incorporation certificate (82), Income Tax Return Acknowledgement (83), Master data as appearing on MCA (84), details of Page 9 of 36 I.T.A. No.: 1158/KOL/2023 Assessment Year