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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

30,13,588/-. The Ld. AO denied the exemption on the ground that the assessee did not keep the amount of Long Term Capital Gain in Capital Gain Account Scheme, 1988, before the date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO was also of the view that the amount paid to the occupants

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

house property is eligible for standard deduction, under section 24(a), @ 30% of the annual value, the taxability under the head

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

30%, net income of Rs. 22,83,278/- on account of service charges was brought to tax by him in the hands of the assessee. 4. The action of the A.O. in treating the service charges as income from house property instead of business income was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

30%, net income of Rs. 22,83,278/- on account of service charges was brought to tax by him in the hands of the assessee. 4. The action of the A.O. in treating the service charges as income from house property instead of business income was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

30%, net income of Rs. 22,83,278/- on account of service charges was brought to tax by him in the hands of the assessee. 4. The action of the A.O. in treating the service charges as income from house property instead of business income was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before

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

30% i.e. Rs.2400/- 4 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Padmalochanan Radhakrishnan Less: HBL Rs.2,21,000/- Loss Rs.2,15,400/- (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

BOMBAY PLAZA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

section 27(iiib) of the Act does not arise at all. 6. Without prejudice to our above claim that the assessee is not assessable to 'Income from house property' as it is neither an owner nor a deemed owner, the Assessee further submitted that the Assessee was formed with the main objectives of carrying on the business of an investment

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

House Property as per the provisions of Section 23(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ld. CIT(A), Income Tax Department, NFAC erred in law as well in facts in confirming the said addition in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no such Addition was at all called

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

30,00,000) is apportioned between the two co-owners and developers in the ratio of consideration received as under: Name of the Beneficiary Amount (Rs.) Percentage (%) Smt. Saki Gupta 27,37,167/- 19.17 Smt. Sarbani Gupta 27,37,167/- 19.17 M/s. Bilcon 88,04,053/- 61.64 8. Considering the aforesaid facts that the assessee’s share in the differential

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

30,00,000) is apportioned between the two co-owners and developers in the ratio of consideration received as under: Name of the Beneficiary Amount (Rs.) Percentage (%) Smt. Saki Gupta 27,37,167/- 19.17 Smt. Sarbani Gupta 27,37,167/- 19.17 M/s. Bilcon 88,04,053/- 61.64 8. Considering the aforesaid facts that the assessee’s share in the differential

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]

Property income: I have carefully examined the submission made by the appellant regarding the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 24(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.11,//,507/-, 30% standard deduction claimed under section 24(a), and dispute regarding income from house

AMIT PAREKH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property, he had borrowed housing loan and started construction on the site belonging to him. After the sale, the amount spent towards construction of the house is more than the consideration received by the sale of agricultural land and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of section 54F of the Act." 19. In the present case, the investment made

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

30 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited (iii) Group C cases pertained to the question, whether, chambers in the building of a club let out to members, annual value of a club house and pavilions and income earned from such properties owned by a club was liable to be taxed

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

30 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited (iii) Group C cases pertained to the question, whether, chambers in the building of a club let out to members, annual value of a club house and pavilions and income earned from such properties owned by a club was liable to be taxed