DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

section 23 was inserted by finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2018; ITA No.1298/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 DCIT Cir-12(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. Page 9 therefore, the same is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. 11. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of coordinate bench in assessee’s own case

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

54,000 3. Vehicles maintenance 8,56,000 4. Communication expenses 4,72,000 5. Miscellaneous expenses 6,04,000 6. Total 1,71,16,000 17. The disallowance @ 40% of Rs.1,71,16,000/- amounts to Rs.68,46,400/- is considered and held to be pertaining to earning of House Property Income. Therefore, this will not be allowed

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

house as is required in the provisions of section 54 of the Act. For this now, we have to go through the provisions of Section 54 of the Act, which reads as under:- "Profit on sale of property used for residence. 54.[(1

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

house as is required in the provisions of section 54 of the Act. For this now, we have to go through the provisions of Section 54 of the Act, which reads as under:- "Profit on sale of property used for residence. 54.[(1

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house, to the extent the amount deposited in specified bank\naccount is not utilized for the said purpose, it is treated as capital gains of the previous\nyear in which the period of three years expires. The provisions of section 54 are\nreproduced hereunder for clarity:\n\"54. Profit on sale of property used for residence.-(1

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

house and therefore, denied the claim u/s 54 of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings the ld. CIT (A) also dismissed the appeal by observing and holding as under:- “In these grounds the appellant has contested the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,06,07,936/- claimed u/s 54 of the Act. I have carefully perused the submissions

SRI PRADEEP SINGH GURUNG,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

house property was made within time frame stipulated u/s 54(1) of the Act and only the matter was related to source of fund invested under this section

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

54,81,90,652 received by assessee for specific purpose is exempted u/s 11(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and not included in the gross receipts of assessee, the assesse’s claim of donation of Rs. 9,37,71,775/- towards application of fund is irregular. 7.2 The assessee has reported capital gains out of sale of investments

AMIT PAREKH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54 relates to the cost of acquisition of a new estate in the nature of a house property for the purpose of his own residence within the specified period. 18. In Anandraj's case (supra), the relevant conclusion recorded by Karnataka High Court read thus:— 3 "6. It is not in dispute that the assessee sold the agricultural land

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHATOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Property Rights (‘IPRs’) both in India and abroad. In relation thereto, the assessee had obtained technical information or consultancy services from foreign attorneys. The AO observed that although the services were rendered by the foreign attorneys outside India but the services were essentially connected with the assessee’s profession carried on by him in India and therefore these payments were

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

House property in Singapore is not taxable in India under DTAA while as per Article 25 of DTAA, it is taxable in India. 3 M/s UCO Bank 10. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 relates to addition

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

house. Hence the assessee would be squarely entitled for deduction u/s 54 of the Act in respect of investment made in new property at Sector 44, Noida. 7.1. Now the short question is whether the Sector 44 property was constructed within the stipulated time as per section 54 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee along

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

1), Kol. Page 43 therefore there was need to deduct tax at source. This decision has no application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 25. The fifth decision of Delhi Bench of the learned Tribunal in Van Oord ACZ India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2008) 112 ITD 79 (Del), cited by the Revenue is again distinguishable

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, 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

PS MAGNUM,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, 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 COALSALE CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, 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