DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1309/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maa Amba Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aaecm 6507 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar supra had placed heavy reliance on the finding of aforesaid facts recorded by the tribunal. Whereas in the instant case before us, the ld CITA had categorically stated that the assessee had carried on an organized activity with a view to commercially exploit the civic infrastructure

SHELTER PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (A)-XII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Housing Development Limited and no income accrued or received by the assessee under the agreement dt: 31-03-2009, as such, therefore, the said agreement can not be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and thus, the provisions of Section 2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the submission of the AR on this point along with the case laws relied upon

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the submission of the AR on this point along with the case laws relied upon

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

house property' is a loss, in respect of the assessment years commencing on 1st day of April, 1995 and the 1st day of April, 1996, such loss shall be first set off under sub- sections (1) and (2) and thereafter the loss referred to in section 71A shall be set off in the relevant assessment year in accordance with

M/S. SATTS ESTATES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.S.Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2012-13

2,00,000/- was received by the assessee on cancellation of the deal. This receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- was offered as business income. Accordingly it was submitted that Director’s remuneration should be allowed. 6. The CIT(A) observed that rental receipt of the appellant company has been assessed under the head ‘House Property’. There is only one other

ACIT, CIRCLE - 11(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

section 40A of the Act and held that it is a business decision of the assessee which cannot be interfered. Ld. CIT(A) noted that AO cannot step into the shoes of a businessman and thus, deleted the disallowance so made amounting to Rs.92,62,860/-. We note that there is no dispute on the payment of interest. The issue

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

property belongs to\nthe Lessor and not to the assessee. The assessee can not claim depreciation\nalso. Considering the factual position, we are of the view that order passed\nby the Id CIT (A) does not contain any infirmity. Therefore, we confirm the\norder of ld. CIT(A). and Ground No. 2 of the appeal is\ndismissed.\n8. Ground

ACCORDION PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1546/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Accordion Properties Pvt. Ltd. –Vs- Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaeca 0439 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and the assessee is entitled to get deductions under section 24 only and the assessee is not entitled to get any other deduction in respect of that as per provision of the Act. Considering the same the following expenditure should be disallowed under the head of ‘income from Business or Profession’. Those are- i) Corporation

SMT REENA MAJUMDAR,MIDNAPORE vs. CIT (A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

2 is accordingly dismissed. 9. The issue involved in Ground No. 3 relates to the addition of Rs.84,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of deemed rental income from the house property owned by the assessee. 10. During the year under consideration, the assessee was the owner of the residential property

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1359/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 0993 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property", "Capital gains" and "Income from other sources"], or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business

RIVERBANK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT -4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Tax Audit report of the assessee for the financial year 2010-11, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assessee company has made payments to its related party as under: i. Hiland Projects Ltd : Share of the Manpower & Office Infrastructure Cost : Rs.42,48,756/- ii. Hiland Projects Ltd : Reimbursement of Expenses

M/S VISA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE11(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals for AYs 2005-06 and 2007-08 are partly allowed and appeal for AY 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

House, Alipore, Kolkata- Kolkata. 700027. (PAN: AAACV8649P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 13.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these captioned appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata vide

M/S VISA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE11(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals for AYs 2005-06 and 2007-08 are partly allowed and appeal for AY 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

House, Alipore, Kolkata- Kolkata. 700027. (PAN: AAACV8649P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 13.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these captioned appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata vide

M/S VISA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE11(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals for AYs 2005-06 and 2007-08 are partly allowed and appeal for AY 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

House, Alipore, Kolkata- Kolkata. 700027. (PAN: AAACV8649P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 13.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these captioned appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata vide