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

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

41,756/-, which is more by ₹1,18,819/-and has to be reduced accordingly. The ld. AO further noted that the assessee has claimed deduction of ₹1,06,07,936/- u/s 54 of the Act in respect of property/ sale of house / transferred on 03.06.2016, whereas the agreement for purchase of new property was entered into on 12.03.2014. According

M/S. SHIMMER TEXTILES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-12(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

house property and income of Rs. 31,11,681/- declared in the return for AY 2011- 12 furnished on 22.09.211. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2014 assessing income at Rs. 57,25,440/-. Thereafter the additions made in the assessment order were challenged by the assessee to the higher appellate forum and vide order dated

S.K.DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 S. K. Development Private Deputycommissioner Of Limited. Income-Tax,Circle- 5(1), Vs. 23A, N. S. Road, 10Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aadcs7398K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property income. 3 S.K. Development Private Limited AY: 2013-14 For the other component of Rs.3,65,700/-, Ld. Counsel referred to the details of its dealings in immovable properties during the year for which brokerage expenses were incurred. The details are tabulated as under: Brokerage charges against sale of space 01­Apr­2012 to 31­Mar­2013

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

section 11(1) of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 with prospective effect from 01.04.2022. However, this explanation is clarificatory in nature as the set off of loss is allowed as per the provisions of Chapter VI, which relates to computation of loss under various heads e.g. house property, business loss, capital gains etc. while

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

41(1) or not.\nIn view of the above, Rs. 1,90,46,000/- is disallowed as expenditure\ndeduction u/s. 37(1)and added to the total income.\nIn the computation of MAT, the assessee has not added back the entire\nprovision for mine closure amounting to Rs. 1,90,46,000/-, which is\ndisallowed as per provision of section

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

section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house no. 32. Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah on 7th January 1910. The name of Bengal Flour mill was subsequently changed to BEM Industries Ltd. (Please see Development agreement dated 1st January 2007 at page

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

section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house no. 32. Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah on 7th January 1910. The name of Bengal Flour mill was subsequently changed to BEM Industries Ltd. (Please see Development agreement dated 1st January 2007 at page

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

RAJ KUMAR GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

41,326/- being the balance of loans as at the end of the year is shown which was given to 34 parties, apparently related to the assessee, as non-interest-bearing loans while to 7 parties a sum of ₹46,33,53,338/-, 4 of which happened to be companies, was given at the rate of 5% while in case

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

Section 194) On various dates Rs.70,00,000/- 2. Deposited cash of Rs. 10,00,000 or On various dates Rs.14,04,700/- more in a saving bank account 3. Deposit in Cash aggregating On various dates Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.2,00,00/- or more, with a Banking company 4. Purchase of immovable property On various dates Rs.1

AADARSH LADDHA, LEGAL HEIR OF KAILASH CHAND LADDHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1013/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Aadarsh Laddha,………………….………...……Appellant (Legal Heir Of Kailash Chand Laddha) 31, Giri Babu Lane, Kolkata-700012, W.B. [Pan:Abapl2499R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-37(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Sidhharth Kejriwal, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

house property amounting to Rs.33,600/- and income from other sources of Rs.59,104 and claimed deduction under chapter-VIA of Rs.2,27,049/- and finally arrived at the total income of Rs.10,55,930/-.As per audited profit & loss account, it is seen that a total expenses [Rs.6,10,525/- + Rs.4,17,700/-] i.e. in total Rs.10

BAGHMARI TEA COMPANY LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

house property and also from other sources. The assessee filed return 2 I.T.A. No.937/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Baghmari Tea Company Ltd. of income and also filed revised return of income showing the revised total income of Rs. 13,98,830/-. As per revised return of income the composite income from the tea business had been

BISWADIP GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLIE - 1(1), I.T.,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

property was ₹41,92,500/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. 'AO') noted that the transaction amount related to the person was ₹16,18,438/- whereas the stamp duty value was ₹41,92,500/- and thus, the difference amount of ₹25,74,062/- had escaped assessment. The assessment of the assessee was reopened

SUGAM GRIHA NIRMAAN LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

housing unit with separate facilities for living, cooking and sanitary requirement, distinctly separated from other residential units I.T.A. No.: 1665/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sugam Griha Nirmaan Limited. within the building, which is directly accessible from an outer door or through an interior door in a shared hallway and not by walking through the living space of another household

M/S. DWARKA GOODS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

property so that the same can contribute to the creditworthiness of the investing company. However, in the instant case, subscribing company has not only filed complete details showing financial strength of the investor companies, sufficient funds available to make the investment but had also confirmed the transaction before the ld. AO. Thus, all the limbs of section 68 as normally