RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property. We note that the assessee has started the construction\nof the house within three years and therefore, the exemption u/s 54\nof the Act cannot be denied to the assessee on the ground that the\nconstruction of the house was not completed within the stipulated\nperiod. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of the\nHon

LMJ OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

house property. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities and this issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 14. The next issue in ITA No. 1699/K/2011 in the case of LMJ Business Centres P. Ltd. for AY 2004-05 is as regards to disallowance of loan processing fee by AO and confirmed by CIT(A). 15. We have

M/S LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

house property. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities and this issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 14. The next issue in ITA No. 1699/K/2011 in the case of LMJ Business Centres P. Ltd. for AY 2004-05 is as regards to disallowance of loan processing fee by AO and confirmed by CIT(A). 15. We have

LMJ OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

house property. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities and this issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 14. The next issue in ITA No. 1699/K/2011 in the case of LMJ Business Centres P. Ltd. for AY 2004-05 is as regards to disallowance of loan processing fee by AO and confirmed by CIT(A). 15. We have

LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

house property. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities and this issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 14. The next issue in ITA No. 1699/K/2011 in the case of LMJ Business Centres P. Ltd. for AY 2004-05 is as regards to disallowance of loan processing fee by AO and confirmed by CIT(A). 15. We have

M/S LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

house property. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities and this issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 14. The next issue in ITA No. 1699/K/2011 in the case of LMJ Business Centres P. Ltd. for AY 2004-05 is as regards to disallowance of loan processing fee by AO and confirmed by CIT(A). 15. We have

LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

house property. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities and this issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 14. The next issue in ITA No. 1699/K/2011 in the case of LMJ Business Centres P. Ltd. for AY 2004-05 is as regards to disallowance of loan processing fee by AO and confirmed by CIT(A). 15. We have

ITO, WARD - 13(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASHAMANGAL PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

302/-. In the said return, the rental income received in 1 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Ashamangal Portfolio Pvt. Limited the form of warehousing charges, etc. was declared by the assessee- company as its business income and after claiming deduction for the various expenses, net income was disclosed by the assessee. Keeping in view the stand consistently taken

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

302,064/- from sale of Right to Property against LTCL of Rs.111,33,28,388!- from sale of Government Securities not permissible to the assessee. During the year the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.86,39,024/- from Sale of Bonds and L TCG of Rs.1,13,02,064/- from sale of Right to Property, totalling

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 30(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

302 of 2011 GA 3200/2011 decided on 23.11.2011, held as follows: “We have heard Mr. Nizamuddin and gone through the impugned judgment and order. We have also examined the point formulated for which the present appeal is sought to be admitted. It is argued by Mr. Nizamuddin that this court needs to take decision as to whether section

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:-

302 Sector 2(c), Bidhannagar, Durgapur obtained by it on lease from the Govt. of West Bengal through a lease deed dt. 7th April, 2009 and that the capital gains arising out of this transaction has not been offered to taxation by the assessee and that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the same b) That

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

property. Therefore, because of the aforesaid technical compulsions, the house was constructed first and then transferred in the name of the assessee. However, the construction was made out of the investment of the assessee, which was not disputed. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the provisions of section 54F are beneficial provision for permitting purchase/construction

SHRI VIJAY MAHIPAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

property of the assessee stands which is found located at the bye-lane of Sister Nivedita Road at Gurung Busty, Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri and which is also found can be viewed opposite of the location of the office premises of West Bengal State Electricity Board, Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri. The structure of the building is found with building plan for Ground

SRI RAMKRISHNA SAMITY,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T.CIR - 2,SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

house property, interest income and donations received from various donors under the head income from other sources. This action was upheld by the Learned CITA for the same reason. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal for the Asst Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 before us. 4. The Learned AR argued that the donations received by the assessee have been

MR DEBAYAN BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Mr. Debayan Bhattacharya Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Db-29/B-4, Sector-1, Manicktalla Civic Centre, Salt Late City, Uttarapan Complex,Ds-Ii Kolkata-700064 Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpb 2128 D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.226/Xxxii/10-11/Cir-50/Kol, Dated 04.10.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 31.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 10.10.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.10,46,879/-. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The I.T.Act. Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected Under Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making Addition @ 1.25% Of Rs.193,279,555 Which 2 Mr. Debayan Bhattacharya

section 145 but for all practical purposes the AO has rejected the books of account and adopted a N.P. rate 1.25%. However, it is seen that the AO has made a few mistakes while making the additions in the assessment order. As per the Final Accounts of the two proprietory concerns of the assessee, the details of turnover

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.0L2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high value of non-cash transactions in the current account. As per the information obtained through bank officials the customers is a Gems and Jewellery Trader Transaction pattern shows that account get credit mainly by RTGS & transfer

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.0L2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high value of non-cash transactions in the current account. As per the information obtained through bank officials the customers is a Gems and Jewellery Trader Transaction pattern shows that account get credit mainly by RTGS & transfer

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.0L2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high value of non-cash transactions in the current account. As per the information obtained through bank officials the customers is a Gems and Jewellery Trader Transaction pattern shows that account get credit mainly by RTGS & transfer