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

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

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

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

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’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secunderabad Club confirmed the order of the Bankipur Club Ltd. It further held that in that judgment the issue of earning interest on Fixed Deposits from Banks was not decided. It held that in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) the Supreme Court adjudicated the question as to whether

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’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secunderabad Club confirmed the order of the Bankipur Club Ltd. It further held that in that judgment the issue of earning interest on Fixed Deposits from Banks was not decided. It held that in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) the Supreme Court adjudicated the question as to whether

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’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secunderabad Club confirmed the order of the Bankipur Club Ltd. It further held that in that judgment the issue of earning interest on Fixed Deposits from Banks was not decided. It held that in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) the Supreme Court adjudicated the question as to whether

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

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

house property, which was also accepted in the assessment, meaning thereby that there was no deprecation claimed on the block of assets and also not found in the books of accounts and no deprecation was claimed or allowed in the assessments. The ld. AO computed the Long-Term Capital Gain, however, the valuation report filed by the assessee

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

34), this dividend income is not to be\nincluded in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the\napplicability of section 14A which is based on the theory of apportionment\nof expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income. Therefore, to that\nextent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in\nacquiring those shares will

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

34 of the addition\nmade in the hands of the assessee. The Id. CIT (A) recorded a finding\nof facts that the 50% ownership in the property belonged to Amarjit\nSing and 25% to Manjit Singh and 25% of the assessee i.e. Kajari\nBanerjee.\n06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available\non record, we find that

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

house property, business loss, capital gains etc. while the income of the trust is to be computed as per the normal commercial principles by considering the receipt and expenditure for the relevant period. It is also stated that out of total receipts received in the relevant year at Rs.68,41,927/-, only Rs. 80,000/- was on account of donations

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.”

section 54F of the Act, the amount of consideration can be invested for purchase of house even the year prior to the date of sale of asset, hence it is not the same money but the amount equal to the net consideration received. 6.2 So far as the issue relating to belated transfer of the house in the name

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

34,390/- which included capital gains of ₹89,11,086/- besides other income. Subsequently, the return was selected for scrutiny and order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') made an addition of ₹76,04,62,428/- on account of long-term capital gains on transfer of land, leading

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

34,390/- which included capital gains of ₹89,11,086/- besides other income. Subsequently, the return was selected for scrutiny and order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') made an addition of ₹76,04,62,428/- on account of long-term capital gains on transfer of land, leading

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

34), this dividend income is not to be\nincluded in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the\napplicability of section 14A which is based on the theory of apportionment\nof expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income. Therefore, to that\nextent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in\nacquiring those shares will

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

34), this dividend income is not to be\nincluded in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the\napplicability of section 14A which is based on the theory of apportionment\nof expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income. Therefore, to that\nextent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in\nacquiring those shares will

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

34), this dividend income is not to be\nincluded in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the\napplicability of section 14A which is based on the theory of apportionment\nof expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income. Therefore, to that\nextent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in\nacquiring those shares will