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

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

properties at a values which were lower than the stamp duty value, the ld. Assessing Officer did not dispute the same after exercising his discretion under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The ld. A.R. also drew our attention to the fact that Notes to Clause 29B of the Tax Audit Report, copy of which is placed at pages

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property belonged to Amarjit\nSing and 25% to Manjit Singh and 25% of the assessee i.e. Kajari\nBanerjee.\n06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available\non record, we find that the agreement for the purchase of the said\nproperty was made on 28.12.2012, when the assessee paid by cheque\nof ₹10 lacs and the remaining consideration

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

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

56 taxman.com 163 (Karnataka HC).\n\"14. In my considered view, the contention of the Revenue to deny the benefit\nof deduction to the petitioner/assessee cannot be justified for the following\nreasons: Section 54(2) cannot be read in isolation and on the other hand,\napplication of Section 54(2) should take place only when the assessee failed\nto satisfy

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

property in common pool, it will be an income of the 'HUF', however, the same will be exempt from taxation as the I.T.A No. 2244/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 12 Shri Gyanchand M. Bardia vs. ITO individual members of an 'HUF' have been included in the meaning of 'relative' as provided in the explanation to section 56(2

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) valuation of jewellery,— (i) ...; (ii) …; Page 6 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 2011/Kol/2018 C.O. No.: 117/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. LNB Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (iii) …date; (b) valuation of archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures or any work of art,— (i) …; (ii) …; (iii) …; (c) valuation of shares and securities

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) and u/s 142(1) of the Act along with\nquestionnaire were issued and served to the assessee. The reason\nfor selection in scrutiny in this case was large deduction claimed\nu/s 54F of the Act. The assessee during the year had sold\n36,00,000 shares of Emami Ltd. on 13.07.2020at total sale\nconsideration

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

56 Taxmann.com 456 that the entire income was through letting out of the two properties namely, "Chennai House" and "Firhavin Estate"and there is no other income except the income from letting out of these two properties, which is similar in the case of the assessee also, as the assessee has also mainly rental income from letting out of properties

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

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income tax Act has not made any addition for Rent received from Reliance Industries Ltd of Rs.1,05,90,837/- and Service charges of Rs.70,60,558/-. (Copy of Assessment Order, 142(1) notice dated 21.12.2020 and reply of the Appellant dated 28.12.2020 enclosed). It is prayed that considering the submissions made herein

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

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income tax Act has not made any addition for Rent received from Reliance Industries Ltd of Rs.1,05,90,837/- and Service charges of Rs.70,60,558/-. (Copy of Assessment Order, 142(1) notice dated 21.12.2020 and reply of the Appellant dated 28.12.2020 enclosed). It is prayed that considering the submissions made herein

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

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income tax Act has not made any addition for Rent received from Reliance Industries Ltd of Rs.1,05,90,837/- and Service charges of Rs.70,60,558/-. (Copy of Assessment Order, 142(1) notice dated 21.12.2020 and reply of the Appellant dated 28.12.2020 enclosed). It is prayed that considering the submissions made herein

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

2)(d) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Before us also, similar arguments as made before the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) were made by the Ld. AR which have been considered while the Ld. DR defended the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. Similar issue came up in the assessee

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

56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) has held that where in terms of memorandum of association, main object of assessee-company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting out same, said income was to be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house property In this case, the main object of the company is with relation

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

DAMODAR DHARA, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-27(1), HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 414/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Damodar Dhara,......................................Appellant Thekuachak, Kumarchak, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur-721652 [Pan: Aiupd7241C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-27(1), Haldia, Dubey House, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Midnapore (East)-721602 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr.D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the income should be added to the income of the assessee as deemed income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld. A.R. contended before us that the disclosure was made by the assessee during the year suo motu to the tune of Rs.84,40,690/-, which

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