SUGAM REALTY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

section (1) as if such house or houses had been let. (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land

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

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

sections 23 & 24 of the Income Tax Act and further prayed that an opportunity may be provided to place the 3 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Padmalochanan Radhakrishnan necessary documents in support of the claim of interest expenditure incurred towards purchase of house property before the ld. Assessing Officer for necessary verification. 5

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

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]

section 24(a), and proposition made to make Incorrect addition of coowner's income in my total income. I wish to hereby submit that the house property in question (Oberoi Exquisite ) was considered as deemed to be let out property and I am a co-owner of the property. My share being 50 percent of the house property

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

5. In this year, the assessee has filed its return of income on 26.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.4,51,510/-. This return was revised by the assessee on 15.01.2010 by declaring total income of Rs.8,81,516/- . The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section 142(1) were issued

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

5. In this year, the assessee has filed its return of income on 26.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.4,51,510/-. This return was revised by the assessee on 15.01.2010 by declaring total income of Rs.8,81,516/- . The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section 142(1) were issued

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

5. In this year, the assessee has filed its return of income on 26.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.4,51,510/-. This return was revised by the assessee on 15.01.2010 by declaring total income of Rs.8,81,516/- . The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section 142(1) were issued

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

house property which is the complete code in itself and no deduction other than those mentioned in section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere

ANIL KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 24 of the IT Act, only 30% standard deduction is allowable from the said rental income. It was also seen from records that during the earlier A.Y 2016-17 the assessee has shown house property income of Rs.31,50,284/- being the amount of rent from commercial complex and tower account. 3. The AO completed the assessment by allowing

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

house property', whereas, the cost of the same asset is taken into consideration when it is sold and capital gains are computed under section 48. We do not have even a slightest doubt that the interest in question is indeed an expenditure in acquiring the asset. Since both provisions are altogether different, the assessee in the instant case is certainly

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

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

section 147/148 and those powers are saved.” 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of ₹31,000/- made by the Ld. AO and the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is extracted in the preceding para 3. We find no justification for interfering the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) who has treated the income from house property

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5,48,40,817/-, on which the deduction u/s 54 of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 (the Act) has been claimed in the return filed in form ITR-2\nand only Long-Term Capital Gain to the extent of ₹1,88,317/- was\noffered to tax. The Id. AO noted that the said capital gain was utilized\nby purchase