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

M/S H.C. COMMERCIAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN.CIR.-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. H. C. Commercial Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Middleton Row, Kolkata- Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- 700071. 2(1), Kolkata. (Pan: Aabch2665N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1037682272(1) Dated 10.12.2021 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Central Circle-2(1),Kolkata Dated 28.01.2016. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: 1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A)-20, Kolkata On 10.12.2021 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.Lt.(A) Was Wrong In Dittoing The Order Of The A.O. & Confirming The Disallowance U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii), 0.5% Of Average Investment Amounting To Rs.5,00,482/- (Rs.9,00,375/- Minus Rs.4,00,563/-) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That The A.O. Was Not Deducted The Income From Which Is Taxable During The Year & The Amount Of Rs.400,563/- Has Already Added Back To The Return Income, So, Rs.5,00,482/- Cannot Be Part For The Disallowance & Wrongly Calculated U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal.

293/-, we note that assessee has made an investment in an immovable property from which income earned has been reported under the head “Income from House Property” after 8 M/s. H. C. Commercial Pvt. Ltd., A.Y: 2013-14 claiming standard deduction @ 30% as provided u/s. 24 of the Act. We also note that the significant portion of earning

MEDICARE TPA SERVICE (I) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOL - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

property; and whether the developers were or were not ready and willing to carry out their part of the bargain. Since we are of the view that sub-clause (v) of Section 2(47) of the Act is not attracted on the facts of this case, we need not go into any other factual question. 24. The matter can also

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-23(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDIP ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

house property was inherited by the assessee from her father was sold in asst. yr. 1993-94. The father of the assessee acquired the property in 1972 and therefore, the assessee opted for FMV of 1st April, 1981 to be the cost of acquisition. The assessee computed the indexed cost of acquisition with reference to the cost of inflation index

M/S JALAN CEMENT WORKS LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jalan Cement Works V/S. Cit, Kolkata-1 Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No Aayakar Bhawan, 202, 81, Netji Subhas Road, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 001 Square, Kolkata- [Pan No.: Aaacj6788R] 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

House property, capital gains and income from other sources. In the instant case the income of the assessee is mainly from long term capital gain, therefore it is out of the purview of the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. Income here means the net income. In this connection we rely in the order of Hon’ble High Court

M/S DHARA DEALERS PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-13(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

property, the AO made independent enquiries by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act and thereafter accepted the replies after examining them. The Pr. CIT has not pointed out as to what is the error committed by the AO in accepting the replies from various parties. Without pointing out any defects, it cannot be said that there

ITO, WD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDHIR SATNALIWALA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 452/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito Ward 12(2), Kolkata..............................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 Sudhir Satnaniwala……………………………………………….............................Respondent 10, Raja Santosh Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Ajvps2252C] Appearances By: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri M. Satnaliwala, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 10, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 30 , 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 12, Kolkata Dated 04.12.2013. 2. In Ground No 1, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 25,74,066/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Demand For Outstanding Municipal Taxes. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Inter Alia Is Engaged In The Business Of Running Guest House In The Name Of His Proprietary Concern, M/S. Check-In Check-Out. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 23.09.2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 32,18,292/-. In The Profit & Loss Filed

property taxes out-goings and other burdens whatsoever payable to local or other authority upon the demised premises. He has also established on the basis of the demand notice issued by the municipal authority that the amount in question was paid by the assessee on account of municipal taxes for the period from 1st April, 2002 along with the interest

SMRITI JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-33(2),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1224/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Smriti Jaiswal,…………………………..…………Appellant Flat 33, 86 Prince Golam Hossain Street, Kolkata-700032 [Pan:Afdpj6962N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Sankar Lal Poddar, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

house property income and income from proprietary business, M/s. Movie Max, which runs Popkorn Cinema at Galaxia Mall, Ranchi. Further, the assessee is also partner in M/s. Sujata Picture Palace along with another partner, Shri Dushyant Jaiswal. During the year under consideration, Sujata Cinema was gutted in fire on 10.02.2017 before filing of the income tax returns. A copy

KAUSHAL KISHORE BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-45(1), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

property, capital gains & income from other sources. The assessee has been investing in shares from which it earns long term and short term capital gain. In the current year, the assessee has claimed a deduction u/s 10(38) of Rs.3,66,536/- on account of long term capital gain/loss on listed securities. This capital gain included a long term capital

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

house property for Rs.11,00,000/- cannot treat the same as cash credit. Suspicion cannot replace the real evidential documents. Simply by arguing it to be a case of manipulation the Revenue is not supposed to succeed in their contention without proper evidence. Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT (2005) 6 SOT 245 (Mumbai), Asstt. CIT vs. Claridges Investments & Finances

M/S. BHUMI NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

293 days. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, the appellant do hereby most respectfully request for condonation of delay.” 1.1. Considering the reasons enunciated in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. In this case the assessee filed his return of income on 06.01.2016 declaring total income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

293 ITR 437) claimed that such expenditure was capital in nature and therefore not permissible. Rather it was canvassed by the Revenue that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd Vs CIT (supra), the order of the AO be upheld. After considering the submissions of the parties

BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

293 ITR 437) claimed that such expenditure was capital in nature and therefore not permissible. Rather it was canvassed by the Revenue that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd Vs CIT (supra), the order of the AO be upheld. After considering the submissions of the parties

ITO(E), WD-1(3),KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. SRI AUROBINDO INSTITUTE OF CULTURE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

House, Tollygunge, Kolkata - 700040 [PAN : AABAS2494L] Appearances by: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri R.K. Patodi, FCA appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Date of concluding the hearing : December 05, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : December 08, 2017 ORDER Per Veeravalli Durga Rao, JM This appeal is preferred by the revenue against

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

293/- and Rs.14,59,187/- in latter assessment year; respectively, on account of tax payer’s failure in deducting TDS on export commission paid to various UAE based payees, involving proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Both Learned Representatives state at the outset that the relevant facts giving rise to the impugned identical

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

293/- and Rs.14,59,187/- in latter assessment year; respectively, on account of tax payer’s failure in deducting TDS on export commission paid to various UAE based payees, involving proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Both Learned Representatives state at the outset that the relevant facts giving rise to the impugned identical

D.C.I.T CC - XXVIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPML INFRA LTD (ERSTWHILE M/S SUBHAS PROJECTS& MARKETING LTD), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

sections, plans, architectural, structural drawings and all working drawings, for approval. (para 9.2) ITA No.1291-1292/Kol/2013 A.Ys 06-07 & 09-10 DCIT CC-XXVIII, Kol. v. M/S SPML Infra Ltd Page 7 (ii) Materials: All the material required for the work was to be provided by the assessee. (page 39, para 10) (iii) Labour: The assessee was required to employ staff

PEERLESS HOTELS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2002-03

housed in an old building which was earlier occupied Ritz Continental Hotel. The assessee came to occupy the said hotel premises from the government of West Bengal on lease basis in 1993. It was found that the building was suffering from structural problem and therefore the assessee appointed a consultant to examine the damages and defect. In this regard tests