APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

houses within country and abroad. The ICC was set up with the sole purpose of promotion and protection of Indian business and industry and was duly registered u/s 12A of the Act as a charitable association with the main objects as set out in Clause 3 of MAA of the assessee company as “to promote and protect the trade, commerce

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

houses within country and abroad. The ICC was set up with the sole purpose of promotion and protection of Indian business and industry and was duly registered u/s 12A of the Act as a charitable association with the main objects as set out in Clause 3 of MAA of the assessee company as “to promote and protect the trade, commerce

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house in India\nwithin the time prescribed under Section 54(1), the deduction is bound to be\ngranted without reference to Section 54(2), which would come into operation\nonly in the event of failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the\nrequirement under Section 54(1). Mere non compliance of a procedural\nrequirement under Section

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

2) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant having furnished the relevant housing loan interest certificates in support of the interest claimed as deduction while computing the loss of Rs.6,59,639/- under the head ‘Income from House Property’, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought not have denied the aforesaid claim on indecisive

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. Thus, the only issue, which is raised and has to be examined, is whether the\nrespondent-assessee can be denied benefit of Section 54F because construction of the\nhouse had commenced before the sale of the shares i.e., on 17th September, 2008.\n6. Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal have relied upon decisions of Allahabad High\nCourt and Karnataka High

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Housing Development Corporation Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 316, the assessment is liable to be annulled. 6. In these circumstances, as notice u/s.143(2) has not been issued in respect of the valid revised return filed by the assessee u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014, the consequential Assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2014 for the AY 2012-13, in the case

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

property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than two houses— (a) the provisions of that sub-section shall apply only in respect of two of such houses, which the assessee may, at his option, specify in this behalf; (b) the annual value of the house or houses, other than the house or houses in respect of which

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Housing Development Corporation Ltd. reported\nin 343 ITR 316, the assessment is liable to be annulled.\n6. In these circumstances, as notice_u/s.143(2) has not been\nissued in respect of the valid revised return filed by the\nassessee_u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014, the consequential Assessment\nOrder_u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2014 for the AY 2012-13, in the case

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

property to DVO in terms of section 50C(2) of the Act if the lower sale consideration actually received by the assessee than the stamp duty value as justified by it was not acceptable. No such reference, however, was made by the Assessing Officer and keeping in view the same as well as all the facts of record, we find

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property both movable and immovable. Section 80 of the Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 889, 890, 891 & 892/KOL/2023 AYs: 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Damodar Valley Corporation. said Act could be relevant which declares the Kerala State Electricity Board to be a company within the meaning of Income-tax Act, 1922 (old Act.) and further declares

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

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