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

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

property and its agricultural use need to be ascertained by the AO with reference to the documents and earlier year records. Accordingly the ld. CIT(A) disregarded the submission of the assessee by holding as under : “In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that owing to the omission on the part of the AO to conduct

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 DIVAKAR SOLAR SYSTEM LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

40A(2) / 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the Grounds 3(a) to 3(f) raised by the assessee are allowed. 12 Divakar Solar System Ltd., AY 2012-13 5. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) is justified in upholding the disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

house property, where notional income is taken into account, no other income is considered on notional basis but taken on real income theory. Thus, to be taxable the income must fall under any Sections under the Act. Even in cases when deemed income is taxable under the Act, it is not on hypothecation or assumption basis but is based

MAK, ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT(CEN.)-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

40A(7) of the Act, 1961 and added back to your total assessed income. Issue related to payment of leave encashment to the tune of Rs. 76,016/-:- In the instant case, it is further observed from Form no. - 3CD [(SI. No. - 26(i)(B)(b)] that you had not paid leave encashment to the tune

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

house property” and the question that arises is what is such annual value of the property. In this regard, it is observed that the fair rental value of Rs.1,20,000/- is taken by the Assessing Officer as annual value of the assessee’s property without giving any basis and the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time

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

40a(ia) but will be allowed in the year in which TDS is deposited thereon. The appellant has deposited the TDS on 13.03.2012 and has made a prayer that the said amount should be allowed in assessment year 2012-13. I direct that the Assessing Officer should allow the amount of Rs.14,61,956/- after due verification during the assessment

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)

3. The fact relating to the issue that is to be adjudicated by me in ground nos. 1 and 2 are stated by the Assessing Officer at page 2.8 which is extracted for ready reference: 2 Accordion Properties Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2013-14 “(A) INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY The assessee is the owner of a building (flat) at 9a, Bally

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed loss from business of Rs.3,58,644/- whereas its only business did not recognise revenue as all the expenditure incurred till the end of this year i.e. 31.03.2012 were included in work in progress. He observed that on verification of the profit

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

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

40A (2) (a) under which certain types of expenditure incurred by way of payment to related parties is not deductible where the AO "is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods." In such event, "so much of the expenditure as is so considered

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

40A (2) (a) under which certain types of expenditure incurred by way of payment to related parties is not deductible where the AO "is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods." In such event, "so much of the expenditure as is so considered

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

40A (2) (a) under which certain types of expenditure incurred by way of payment to related parties is not deductible where the AO "is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods." In such event, "so much of the expenditure as is so considered

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

ONKAR PARIVAHAN FINANCE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 9(2), KOLKATA

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

40A(3) in respect of the following business expenses incurred on different dates. (a) Purchase of fruits amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- (b) Expenses incurred for fashion show at Delhi for Rs. 72,386/- 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition

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

BHABESH MAJUMDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2009-10

house property and from other sources. According to AO, the assessee disclosed ‘short term capital loss (Rs.7,01,46,528/-)’ instead of ‘long term capital loss (Rs. 2,85,67,594/-)’ and ‘long term capital loss’ instead of ‘short term capital loss’. In explanation before the AO, the assessee stated in penalty proceedings that due to an inadvertent mistake