RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

45,230/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) dated 19.01.2011. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken up by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 31.03.2016 after Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 recording reasons for the issue of such notice. In the proceeding u/s. 148 read with 147 Ld. AO observed that assessee

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

45,230/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) dated 19.01.2011. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken up by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 31.03.2016 after Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 recording reasons for the issue of such notice. In the proceeding u/s. 148 read with 147 Ld. AO observed that assessee

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

45,230/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) dated 19.01.2011. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken up by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 31.03.2016 after Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 recording reasons for the issue of such notice. In the proceeding u/s. 148 read with 147 Ld. AO observed that assessee

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

45,230/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) dated 19.01.2011. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken up by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 31.03.2016 after Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 recording reasons for the issue of such notice. In the proceeding u/s. 148 read with 147 Ld. AO observed that assessee

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

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

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

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

45,236/-, which was required to be disallowed as per Explanation 1 to sub-section (1) of section 37, were not disallowed. Hence, such failure rendered the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2023 erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The ld. PCIT has gone through the provisions

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

45,230/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) dated 19.01.2011. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken up by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 31.03.2016 after recording reasons for the issue of such notice. In the proceeding u/s. 148 read with 147 Ld. AO observed that assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.32,78,068/- under section

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

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) years and/or make it habitable. The\nessence of said provision is to ensure that assessee who received capital gains would\ninvest same by constructing a residential house and once it is established that\nconsideration so received on transfer of his Long Term capital asset has invested in\nconstructing a residential house, it would satisfy the ingredients of Section

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

house property, which was also accepted in the assessment, meaning thereby that there was no deprecation claimed on the block of assets and also not found in the books of accounts and no deprecation was claimed or allowed in the assessments. The ld. AO computed the Long-Term Capital Gain, however, the valuation report filed by the assessee

WINDOW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

section 263 of the Act. The Ld. PCIT observed as under: 4. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the A/R of the assessee company. In this case, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.09.2021. It was observed from the assessment records and computation of income

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

Houses have discussed in the meeting and the Management Committee passed the Resolution for giving the donations; what influenced the assessee to give this donation to the Institution other than deduction under section 35(1)(ii) etc. 44. It is also pertinent to observe that recently Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has examined the issue of bogus capital gain claim

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

Houses have discussed in the meeting and the Management Committee passed the Resolution for giving the donations; what influenced the assessee to give this donation to the Institution other than deduction under section 35(1)(ii) etc. 44. It is also pertinent to observe that recently Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has examined the issue of bogus capital gain claim

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

Houses have discussed in the meeting and the Management Committee passed the Resolution for giving the donations; what influenced the assessee to give this donation to the Institution other than deduction under section 35(1)(ii) etc. 44. It is also pertinent to observe that recently Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has examined the issue of bogus capital gain claim

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

Houses have discussed in the meeting and the Management Committee passed the Resolution for giving the donations; what influenced the assessee to give this donation to the Institution other than deduction under section 35(1)(ii) etc. 44. It is also pertinent to observe that recently Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has examined the issue of bogus capital gain claim

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

Houses have discussed in the meeting and the Management Committee passed the Resolution for giving the donations; what influenced the assessee to give this donation to the Institution other than deduction under section 35(1)(ii) etc. 44. It is also pertinent to observe that recently Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has examined the issue of bogus capital gain claim