ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

section 139(1) of the Act, was filed by the assessee on 24.07.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 40,87,835/-. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee earned income from Salary, House Property

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

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

40-57, at pages 56]. The Hon’ble Kolkata High Court decided the issue by accepting the plea of the assessee. Hence, this issue is now settled that the same was allowed M/s. Orient Paper & Industries Limited partly under the head ‘business’ and partly under the head ‘income from house property’. Subsequently, the interest was fully allowed under the head

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.

Housing Property at Rs. 1,40,547/-, the A.O. has not applied the provisions of section 23(4)(b), since

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

section as well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide otherwise. Hence we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs.” 13. It can be seen from the above decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that Amendment to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance

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]

40% of the constructed area in the proposed new building which was the subject matter of transfer when the sale deed was executed on 24.07.2008. According to Ld. CIT(A) since the right to receive constructed area was the capital asset in question and since such capital asset was held for period less than three years from the date

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]

40% of the constructed area in the proposed new building which was the subject matter of transfer when the sale deed was executed on 24.07.2008. According to Ld. CIT(A) since the right to receive constructed area was the capital asset in question and since such capital asset was held for period less than three years from the date

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

House Property”. 10. The next issue before the AO was with regard to explanation with regard to unsecured loans appearing in the revised balance sheet filed in the course of assessment proceedings by the Assessee before the AO. There was unsecured loan in the liability side of the balance sheet of Rs.1,71,67,483/-. The Assessee explained sources

M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Properties; [2012] 206 Taxmann 584 (Bom.) 6 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd  Viswas Promoters P. Ltd. v. ACIT; [2013] 29 taxmann.com 19 (Madras)  Madanlal Gupta vs. CIT 9 Taxmann.com 235  ACIT vs. Ashiana Amar Developers, 178 TTJ 424 (ITAT Kolkata)  CBDT Circular No. 205/3/2001/ITA-II dated 4th May 2001  Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. DCIT

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

40,000 c) Transfer charges (paid on 14.6.11 to Noida Authority) 5,38,200 d) Other payments (paid to RWA, Sector 39 on 5.6.09) 7,350 ---------------- 29,21,037 ---------------- 2 3 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani A.Yr.2012-13 The completion certificate of the said residential house property was issued by the Noida Authority on 22.6.2009. The ld AO arrived

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 without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

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 without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

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 without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Properties vs. DCIT (138 ITD 278) the A/R of the assessee claimed that it was prevented by factors beyond its control and therefore the beneficial deduction should not be denied on technical grounds. Having considered the relevant decision of the ITAT I am however unable to agree with the A/R's contentions. In the case decided by ITAT Pune

M/S RKA REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

house property for which standard deduction under section 24 was separately claimed by the assessee. He accordingly estimated 40% of the total