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

house property income ought to have been 2 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited assessed as a business income and he took action under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. After hearing the assessee, he passed an order under section 263 on 15.03.2019, copy of this order is available on pages no. 20 to 25 of the paper book

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

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

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 and no depreciation was claimed on this property. As argued by the learned Counsel for the assessee that once the property let out it loses its character as a business asset and no depreciation was allowable on it. This fact has not been denied by the Revenue. We noted that this issue has been decided by Co-ordinate

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

48,000/-, therefore, the rental income ought to have been considered under "Income from House property". Further the Ld. AO disallowed the expenses such as depreciation, repairs & maintenance and computed the income from house property as per the provision of the Act and assessed the total income at ₹6,43,000/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with

ALOK GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD.28(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

properties sold as per the provisions of section 48(2) of the Act and so also proper deduction u/s 54 of the Act be allowed for investment in new house

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

48,40,817/-. The assessee applied the capital gain to the extent of\n5,46,52,500/- on payment of purchase of land, architect fee and\ndeposit in capital gain account scheme as detailed above. The assessee\nwas granted provisional allotment of land as per agreement with\nUrbana on 01.09.2015, to whom ₹2,80,70,000/- was paid. We also

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

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

house property within the stipulated time limit as set out in Section 54 of the Act and thus substantively complied with the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 15. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 5,99,150/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

48,360/- Rs.2,09,90,919/- 5. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding issued notices nine times, which were duly responded by the assessee by furnishing details and evidences qua the construction expenses along with the sources thereof. The assessee borrowed money from Indian bank for the construction of house and total borrowing during

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

48,360/- Rs.2,09,90,919/- 5. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding issued notices nine times, which were duly responded by the assessee by furnishing details and evidences qua the construction expenses along with the sources thereof. The assessee borrowed money from Indian bank for the construction of house and total borrowing during

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

48,360/- Rs.2,09,90,919/- 5. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding issued notices nine times, which were duly responded by the assessee by furnishing details and evidences qua the construction expenses along with the sources thereof. The assessee borrowed money from Indian bank for the construction of house and total borrowing during

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

48,360/- Rs.2,09,90,919/- 5. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding issued notices nine times, which were duly responded by the assessee by furnishing details and evidences qua the construction expenses along with the sources thereof. The assessee borrowed money from Indian bank for the construction of house and total borrowing during

JANAMANGAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,HALDIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janamangal Samabay Krishi Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(1), Unnayan Samity Limited Vs Haldia Dharmadasbar, Contai Purba Medinipur - 721401 [Pan : Aabaj2517P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Deduction U/S 80P For Whole Of The Profit Of Rs. 65,16,054/ For Business Of Banking/Providing Credit Facility Was Not Allowed As Per Order U/S 250 By The Ld. Cit Appeal Nfac, Of Appellant Assessee Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited A Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act Engage In The Business Of Supporting Agricultural Development. As Per Order U/S 250 A Proportion Of This Profit Was Allowed U/S 80P Of Rs. 22,65,866/ By Disallowing The Balance Amount Of Rs. 42,50,188/ Without Allowing The Deduction U/S Sop. The Basis Of Proportion For Allowance & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Clear To The Assessee. According To The Assessee Cost & Profit Allocation Should Be Based On Allocation Of Fund To Deposit Investment & Loan Disbursement. Therefore Assessee Is Completely Disagreed With The Opinion & Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal U/S 250 & Preferred For Appeal To Tribunal.”

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Considering the same, Rs.2,20,000/- has to be assessed under the head income from house property and after allowing the standard deduction of Rs.66,000/-, the remaining amount of Rs.1,54,000/- has to be taxed as income from house property. 6.1.1. Now, coming to the operational activities of the society

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

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

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

house on 03.10.2016 whereas the assessee sold the property on 09.12.2013. According to Ld. 6 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 AO, it meant that valuation was done after a lapse of three years from the transfer of property. Therefore, according to the Ld. CIT(A), the estimation of the cost of the property is not correct