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 business income? 3. Brief facts of the case are that the asseessee has filed its return of income on 15.12.2014 for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.6,93,13,140/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

3) Property Rent Received NIL treated as self-occupied Less: HBL Rs.70,000/- Loss Rs.70,000/- 7. We further noticed that the ld. Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee is not permitted to adjust the house property loss except for the self-occupied property against other income. Provision of section

SUGAM REALTY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall not apply if— (a) the house or part of the house is actually let during the whole or any part of the previous year; or (b) any other benefit therefrom is derived by the owner. (4) Where the property

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

3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section 22 to 27 of the Act. The Ld. AO noticed with regard to the Land and Building at Hyderabad that the assesse has declared rental income and the said property

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

3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section 22 to 27 of the Act. The Ld. AO noticed with regard to the Land and Building at Hyderabad that the assesse has declared rental income and the said property

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

3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section 22 to 27 of the Act. The Ld. AO noticed with regard to the Land and Building at Hyderabad that the assesse has declared rental income and the said property

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

3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section 22 to 27 of the Act. The Ld. AO noticed with regard to the Land and Building at Hyderabad that the assesse has declared rental income and the said property

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

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

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

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

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

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147/148 and those powers are saved.” 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of ₹31,000/- made by the Ld. AO and the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is extracted in the preceding para 3. We find no justification for interfering the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) who has treated the income from house property

SMT. PRIYANKA GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(IT)-CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

section 24(a), and dispute regarding income from house property in the hands of the co- owner. Having examining the matter, I make the following observations: a. The appellant has disclosed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as her deemed income from house property, as she is a co-owner of such property, After availing of other deductions against such

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) in this respect, upholding the disallowance on claim of depreciation

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Property Management Pvt. Ltd (2023) 151 taxmann.com 103 (Calcutta), pronounced on 31.03.2023 and stated that the order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2023 being after the effective date of amendment by way of Explanation 2 to section 263 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, it was a valid ground for exercising the revisionary power under section 263 as conditions

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

ANIL KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 24 of the IT Act, only 30% standard deduction is allowable from the said rental income. It was also seen from records that during the earlier A.Y 2016-17 the assessee has shown house property income of Rs.31,50,284/- being the amount of rent from commercial complex and tower account. 3

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Properties Pvt Ltd\n30.06.2010\n5,000,000\nChq\nNo\n10,675,616\n5,000,00\n1.R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor\n02.07.2010\n5,000,000\nChq\n750,685\n75,069\n10,000,00\nKolkata-700 001\n31.03.2011\n10,675,61\nPA No. AACCA 2514J\nHarvard Trading Pvt Ltd\n22.06.2010\n4,000,000\nRTGS\nNo\n4,279,123\n4,000,00\n1,R.N.Mkukherjee

SUGAM GRIHA NIRMAAN LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

properties on the date of registration as per page 2 of the assessment order. It was submitted that the agreements are available and also the issue was raised before the Ld. AO. Our attention was drawn to page 2 of the paper book filed which is the copy of submission dated 24.04.2021 from page 1 to 3 of the paper