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

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section

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

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section

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

property. The 14 ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) The Saturday Club Limited return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 31.07.2012. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITMAN COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(47)(v) of the Act would take place until the builder constructed the said property and handed over portion of the same to the assessee as per terms of agreement. Some relevant portions from another case of Pr. CIT vs. Emporis Properties (P.) Ltd. reported in [2023] 458 ITR 68 (Calcutta) deserve to be extracted: “■ From the Joint

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

property and utilises the money for acquiring a plot for the construction of the house and if facts and circumstances point out that assessee intended to construct the house, which has been found so, then it is clear that he wants to avail exemption as provided under the law. Now if the developerafter receiving the money could not fulfill

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

housing or real estate land and property authorities. authorities. 24 Capital Investment Leasehold properties Purchasing a freehold may require less initial property requires a capital investment larger upfront capital compared to investment. purchasing a freehold property. 25 Flexibility Leasehold properties Freehold properties offer less flexibility as provide more flexibility the lessee is bound by as the owner has the terms

M/S. NKA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR OF M/S. NK ENTERPRISES (P) LTD,SINCE AMALGAMATED),KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-3(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1106/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Nka Commercialprivate Limited,.........Appellant (Successor Of M/S. Nk Enterprises (P) Ltd. Since Amalgamated) Unit 1304, Plot No. Ai-4, Ergo Building, Ep/Gp Block, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091 [Pan: Aaccn3159Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Amitava Sen, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 26, 2023 O R D E R

section 2(47)(v) of the Act as only construction was allowed to be done by the builders after obtaining necessary approvals from competent authorities and, therefore, the capital gain has wrongly been computed and 3 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/s.NKA Commercial Private Limited charged to tax. The ld. A.R. relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High

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

47(vib) and then by taking the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 and the indexed cost of acquisition vide section 49(iii) and explanation (iii) to section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house

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

47(vib) and then by taking the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 and the indexed cost of acquisition vide section 49(iii) and explanation (iii) to section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

house before accounting year 2014-15 then no income could be deemed on account of lower payment of purchase price. In support of his contention, he filed a Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 401/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asha Vijay. paperbook and placed on record six decisions. According to him, in all these decisions it has been laid down

WEST BENGAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

47,091), Electricity Recovery (Rs.1,16,92,957), Service Charges (Rs.\n1,69,77,352) and Permission fee (2,97,85,826) It has also been noted that these\nreceipts were shown as other operating Revenue at Note 19, of the profit & loss\nAccount.\nAs per the I.T. Act, 1961, Income from House Property is only possible in the\ncases

WEST BENGAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

47,091), Electricity Recovery (Rs.1,16,92,957), Service Charges (Rs.\n1,69,77,352) and Permission fee (2,97,85,826) It has also been noted that these\nreceipts were shown as other operating Revenue at Note 19, of the profit & loss\nAccount.\nAs per the I.T. Act, 1961, Income from House Property is only possible in the\ncases

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein; or (iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or (iv) in a case where the asset is converted by the owner thereof into, or is treated by him as, stock-in-trade

THE W.B STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-54,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

47,506/-, none of which were directly relatable to the principal business activities of the assessee and formed part of ineligible income for the purpose of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Another sum of Rs. 7,53,134/- shown under the head ‘sundries’ was also treated as ineligible for the purpose of deduction under section

THE W.B. STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2006-07

47,780/- 2 22.12.2008 Assessment order Income assessed: Rs 1,68.54,700 by passed disallowing 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction for Rs.1,28.56,964/- (break up is Interest on Short Term deposits: Rs 55,08,000, Interest on HBL to employees: Rs.28,71,843, Training Institute Grant from NABARD: Rs.11,50,707, Guest Room Charges, Hostel charges, Stipend & Fooding Charges

MOHD. ZULKARNAIN ALI,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Mohd. Zulkarnain Ali Ito, Ward-1(1), Durgapur 98, Ramanujam Road, B-Zone, Vs. Durgapur-713205. Pan: Ahspa 0354 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm:

House Property Income as per 26AS report on estimated basis which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. that on the facts of the case, the A.0. was wrong in not considering the facts that the assessee carrying on business as electrical equipment and light renting and should be deducted @2% on Rent of plant & machinery as per section

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