ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and had claimed before the Hon'ble CIT(A) in writing during the first appellate proceedings that his taxable capital gains was for Rs.44,63,518 only. Sale proceeds of 3.55 Acres of land Rs.4,17,00,000/- Less: Cost of acquisition of 2.81 Acres of land in the hand

E M C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

section 143(3) on 28.12.2016. He accepted the stand of the assessee that rental income is to be assessed as a house property income. The copy of this assessment order is available on pages no. 1 to 14 of the paper book. On page 14, ld. Assessing Officer has made the computation of taxable income. He determined income from house

SMT. PRIYANKA GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(IT)-CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

house property in terms of the above principles. b. Rs. 2,37,459/- : Accordingly to Ld. AO, during the assessment stage, the assessee did not provide the bank statement bearing A/c No. 000201043669. Further the Ld. AO has also stated that verification of the said bank account revealed that the assessee received Rs.2,37,459/- in her bank account

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 and pavilions and income earned from such properties owned by a club was liable to be taxed. (iv) Group D cases were with regard to the question as to whether, an association consisting offilm distributors and exhibitors incorporated as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 was liable to be taxed in respect of (a) admission

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 and pavilions and income earned from such properties owned by a club was liable to be taxed. (iv) Group D cases were with regard to the question as to whether, an association consisting offilm distributors and exhibitors incorporated as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 was liable to be taxed in respect of (a) admission

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 and pavilions and income earned from such properties owned by a club was liable to be taxed. (iv) Group D cases were with regard to the question as to whether, an association consisting offilm distributors and exhibitors incorporated as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 was liable to be taxed in respect of (a) admission

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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEVA LEASE AND FINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Acit Circle-15(1), V/S. M/S Deva Lease & Aayaka Bhawan,Poorva Finance Pvt. Ltd., 1A, 110, Shantipally, Kolkta- K.B.R. Complex, 4, Ho- 107 Chi-Min Sarani, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcd 7839 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O. No.54/Kol/2017 (A/O Ita No.961/Kol/2017) Assessment Year :2012-13 M/S Deva Lease & V/S. Acit, Circle-15(1), Finance Pvt. Ltd., 1A, Aaykar Bhavan, Poorva, K.B.R. Complex, 4, Ho- 110, Shantipally, Chi-Min Sarani, Kolkata- Kolakta-107 71 [Pan No.Aabcd 7839 E] .. "तया"ेपक/Co-Objector ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 14A r.w. 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 by holding that the same is not attracted in case the assessee’s corresponding dividend income is subjected to Dividend Distribution Tax. The assessee on the other hand strongly supports the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. It seeks to repeat the fact that the impugned dividend income had been

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

44 ITR 362). I find that in the recent decision rendered on 9th April 2015 in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd Vs CIT (supra), the Apex Court considered the entire law on the subject. The Apex Court had the benefit of considering number of decisions rendered by the same Court on the issue of taxability of income derived

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]

section 80-IB(10)(a) of the Act is "shall", but it would not necessarily mean that in every case, it shall be taken to be mandatory requirement instead would depend upon the intent of the Legislature and not the language in which the provision is clothed. The meaning and the intent of the Legislature would be gathered

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 Taxman 584/19 taxmann.com 316, which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. 15. In the light of the above reasoning, we have no hesitation in allowing the cases filed by the assessee in respect of assessment years

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

44,914/- from the income earned under the head house property u/s 24(b) of the Act. The AO found that assessee has taken loan from SBM during the month of August, 2008 and repaid the loan of the holding company. The AO claimed that there is no provision under the Act to allow deduction of interest on a subsequent