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

36,602 received by the Appellant may kindly be treated as business income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs 14,65,339 by arbitrarily treating the price of bulk oil at the rate of Rs. 51.46 per kg which may kindly

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

36,602 received by the Appellant may kindly be treated as business income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs 14,65,339 by arbitrarily treating the price of bulk oil at the rate of Rs. 51.46 per kg which may kindly

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

36,602 received by the Appellant may kindly be treated as business income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs 14,65,339 by arbitrarily treating the price of bulk oil at the rate of Rs. 51.46 per kg which may kindly

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property\" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset),\nand the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the\ndate on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three\nyears after that date constructed, a residential house, then, instead of the capital\ngain being charged to income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

properties Pvt. Ltd. [“AAIPL”]. 3. Facts in brief are that, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of Real Estate Development and maintenance service of commercial area let out to various tenants. The assessee had filed return of income during the year declaring total income of Rs. 46,89,36,410/-. The case of the assessee was selected

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

36,300/- to arrive at a figure of Rs.5,29,39,153/-. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), it was contended by the assessee that it was allotted right to use the leasehold property by MIDC. The property was neither transferred in the name of the assessee nor owned

JANAMANGAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,HALDIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janamangal Samabay Krishi Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(1), Unnayan Samity Limited Vs Haldia Dharmadasbar, Contai Purba Medinipur - 721401 [Pan : Aabaj2517P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Deduction U/S 80P For Whole Of The Profit Of Rs. 65,16,054/ For Business Of Banking/Providing Credit Facility Was Not Allowed As Per Order U/S 250 By The Ld. Cit Appeal Nfac, Of Appellant Assessee Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited A Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act Engage In The Business Of Supporting Agricultural Development. As Per Order U/S 250 A Proportion Of This Profit Was Allowed U/S 80P Of Rs. 22,65,866/ By Disallowing The Balance Amount Of Rs. 42,50,188/ Without Allowing The Deduction U/S Sop. The Basis Of Proportion For Allowance & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Clear To The Assessee. According To The Assessee Cost & Profit Allocation Should Be Based On Allocation Of Fund To Deposit Investment & Loan Disbursement. Therefore Assessee Is Completely Disagreed With The Opinion & Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal U/S 250 & Preferred For Appeal To Tribunal.”

36,70,326/- 6.12 As reported by the AO in the remand report, appellant earned a total amount of Rs.2,20,000/- under the activity godown rent. The AO needs to consider it as income from house property or Income from other sources as per the information available on the record and allow the deductions

SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

36,00,000/- and the disallowance as per revised working was worked out at Rs. 19,57,083/- which were disallowed and added to the total income. 4.2 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal and also filed submissions which have been reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). On the ground of disallowance

THE W.B. STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2006-07

36 relating to the aforesaid Appeal filed by the WBSCARDB Ltd., date of order of the CIT was erroneously mentioned as January 01, 2023 instead of correct date of order of November 01, 2023 and thus, the appeal was filed by the WBSCARDB Ltd. within 51 days from the date of issue of the order. Thus, it may kindly

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

MOHD. ZULKARNAIN ALI,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Mohd. Zulkarnain Ali Ito, Ward-1(1), Durgapur 98, Ramanujam Road, B-Zone, Vs. Durgapur-713205. Pan: Ahspa 0354 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm:

House Property Income as per 26AS report on estimated basis which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. that on the facts of the case, the A.0. was wrong in not considering the facts that the assessee carrying on business as electrical equipment and light renting and should be deducted @2% on Rent of plant & machinery as per section

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

36(1)(va) of the Act and another sum of ₹ 45,236/-, which was required to be disallowed as per Explanation 1 to sub-section (1) of section 37, were not disallowed. Hence, such failure rendered the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2023 erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

house properties' on the dissolution of the firm on 13-3-1961. In the memo of Page 8 of 18 I.T.A. No.: 1572/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chandra Bros. adjustment for income-tax purposes, however, the above sum was deducted on the ground that it was not assessable either as revenue or capital. The ITO issued a notice under section

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid