FALCON VINCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PR.CIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Falcon Vincon Private Limited Vs. Pr. Cit-3, Kolkata 102, Tower No.12, Shriram Sameeksha, New Gangamma Gudi Police Station Road, Naidu Layout, Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf3203C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

section 263 of the Act to hold that the rental income from Immoveable Property owned by the Appellant Company was assessable under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" as against the rental income assessed under the head "Income from House Property". 2 Falcon Vincon Private Limited 3

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

section 143(3) of the Act as under :- “During the course of assessment of Return of AY 2015-16 it was found that Right on Property being 37 flats of different configurations, having an approximate total area of 50051 sqft, in a then upcoming housing

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

properties. The said firm subsequently obtained such loan/credit facilities to the extent ofRs.250 crores. 3.3. The said three companies transferred the said land to the said firm on January 9, 2006 at cost and such cost was the amount recorded in the books of account of the said firm for the year ended March 31, 2006 as the value

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

properties. The said firm subsequently obtained such loan/credit facilities to the extent ofRs.250 crores. 3.3. The said three companies transferred the said land to the said firm on January 9, 2006 at cost and such cost was the amount recorded in the books of account of the said firm for the year ended March 31, 2006 as the value

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

properties. The said firm subsequently obtained such loan/credit facilities to the extent ofRs.250 crores. 3.3. The said three companies transferred the said land to the said firm on January 9, 2006 at cost and such cost was the amount recorded in the books of account of the said firm for the year ended March 31, 2006 as the value

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

property or assets of the demerged company or any undertaking thereof by the resulting company; vi) The transfer of the undertaking is on a going concern basis. 29. Once demerger is sanctioned by the Hon’ble High court the enabling provision is section 72A of the Act, which allows carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3 and 4 relate to the Ld. CIT (A) erring in denying the deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not deposit the sale proceeds of his old property in Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988 and had kept the sale proceeds of his old property in his savings bank account and fixed deposits with

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-21, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.857/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukesh Kr. Agarwal Vs. P.C.I.T – 21, Kolkata 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 116/1, Girish Ghosh Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata – Liluah, Howrah-711204. 700014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapa 7519D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Respondent By :Md. Usman, Cit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 03.03.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Lncome Tax - 21, Kolkata Under Section 263 Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 27Th March, 2015 Passed By The Lncome Tax Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Is Without Jurisdiction, Against Law & Facts Of The Case & Therefore Illegal & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

house property and loss from capital gain. 4. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT had exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the I. T. Act. The CIT observed that the order of assessment under Mukesh Kr. Agarwal Assessment Year: 2012-13 section 143(3

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

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

House property in Singapore is not taxable in India under DTAA while as per Article 25 of DTAA, it is taxable in India. 3 M/s UCO Bank 10. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 relates to addition

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

property. Hence, the assessee is eligible for deduction Sec.54 of the Act. But in the present case, whether the assessee has invested the LTCG arising out of sale of these apartments in the new residential house or not, has not been examined by the AO, these need examination, factually. Hence, for factual examination, we set aside this issue

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

property. Hence, the assessee is eligible for deduction Sec.54 of the Act. But in the present case, whether the assessee has invested the LTCG arising out of sale of these apartments in the new residential house or not, has not been examined by the AO, these need examination, factually. Hence, for factual examination, we set aside this issue

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

House Property”. I find that the fact that the appellant had let out the properties to M/s. KCT & Bros (Coal Sales) Limited more than 3 to 4 decades ago is not in dispute. This fact has been admitted by the AO in his remand report as well. I therefore find that the bonafide of the tenancies of M/s. KCT & Bros

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

House Property”. I find that the fact that the appellant had let out the properties to M/s. KCT & Bros (Coal Sales) Limited more than 3 to 4 decades ago is not in dispute. This fact has been admitted by the AO in his remand report as well. I therefore find that the bonafide of the tenancies of M/s. KCT & Bros

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

House Property”. I find that the fact that the appellant had let out the properties to M/s. KCT & Bros (Coal Sales) Limited more than 3 to 4 decades ago is not in dispute. This fact has been admitted by the AO in his remand report as well. I therefore find that the bonafide of the tenancies of M/s. KCT & Bros

SMT TARAMONI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the amount in question received from Dishnet Co. Limited under the head “income from house property

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

property. It follows that the Authority cannot pronounce any ruling on the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 92 of the Act. 14. In the light of the above discussion, the applicant has no option but to comply with the provisions of the Act including the legislation relating to transfer pricing, namely, sections

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