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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

64 lakhs to Fima Properties Ltd., Hyderabad. It is seen\nfrom the order of the CIT(A), though, he has accepted the fact that the assessee has\nexecuted a registered sale deed for purchase of residential flat no. 1203 in Fima Hilltop\nbuilding for a consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs but since the flat was under construction on\nthe date

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

House property' has been upheld. All the expenses allowable has already been considered by the AO by allowing deductions u/s 24(a) and administrative expenses and financial charges ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, no other expense is allowable. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is dismissed. In the result, the appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

64 Taxmann.com 214 (Cal) wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court took the view in the context of the provisions of Sec.80IA(8) of the Act that while computing deduction u/s.80IA Assessee cannot benefit based on the rates chargeable by distribution licensee from consumer and that the benefit could only be claimed on basis of rate fixed by Tariff Regulation

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD ,IDEAL CENTRE vs. CIRCLE-7(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

64,33,030/-. Case picked up for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act which were duly served. The ld. Assessing Officer considering the submissions of the assessee made certain additions and disallowance amounting to Rs. 14,43,282/- and assessed I.T.A. No. 817/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Maithan Ceramic

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2805 & 2806/KOL/2025 AYs: 2018-19, 2022-23 & 2023-24 National Insurance Company Limited. carried on by a mutual insurance company

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

64,720/- and had inherited properties at Jhalda (Purulia) and Aurangabad bearing Dag Nos. 206, 207 & 211 from his father, who acquired the same before 01.04.1981. For the property at Jhalda, in the original computation of income, the assessee computed the capital loss on the basis of actual consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- received by him which was less than

M/S. NKA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR OF M/S. NK ENTERPRISES (P) LTD,SINCE AMALGAMATED),KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-3(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1106/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Nka Commercialprivate Limited,.........Appellant (Successor Of M/S. Nk Enterprises (P) Ltd. Since Amalgamated) Unit 1304, Plot No. Ai-4, Ergo Building, Ep/Gp Block, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091 [Pan: Aaccn3159Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Amitava Sen, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 26, 2023 O R D E R

64 (Calcutta), wherein a similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble Court in the said decision has held as under:- “ From the Joint Development Agreement, it is crystal clear that the assessee continued to be the owner of the property throughout the development of the property and there is no transfer of ownership

SHASHIKANT V. MANSATA (AOP),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

house property which was I.T.A. No. 666/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shashikant V Mansata (AOP) offered to tax in the hands of co-owners u/s 26 of the Act and was offered accordingly. This position has been accepted by the Department in the earlier and succeeding assessment years and the copies of the orders passed

MURARILAL MURARKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property and business or profession. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS, the reasons being large commission expenses and low net profit and low net profit or less shown from large gross receipt. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee which were

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. MILESTONE FINSTOCK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..…………..………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd..……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 62A, Hazra Road, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aaccm0280B] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N S Saini, Ar & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Of The Cit(Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 1075 Days & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are As Under: Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd

house property”, “Capital gains” and “Income from other sources”], or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business

HARSHVARDHAN SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-29,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

house property income, capital gains, interest, dividend etc. 3.1. Assessment was completed by making an addition of Rs.1,19,76,350/- on account of difference in actual cost of flat purchased by the assessee in the year 2011 and the value adopted in the year 2015 for the purpose of stamp duty by invoking the provisions of section

ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-22, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Royal Calcutta Turf Club Acit, Circle-22, Kolkata. C/O M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Vs. Co., 7, C. R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-700072. (Pan:Aaaar0769A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Property deduction @ 30% 19,39,79,159/- (treating as business income) 5. Add. Expenditure towards Horse Welfare 2,00,00,000/- 6. Add. U/s. 43B (prior period expense) 14,90,447/- 7. Add – Entrance Fees as revenue receipt 26,50,000/- 8. Add – 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) 7,06,352/- 9. Add – Non-deduction

BARDHAMAN DISHARI SHRAMIK O JANAALYAN SAMABAY SAMITY LIMITED,BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

64,55,805/-. The case was 2 I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Bardhaman Dishari Shramik O Janakalyan Samabay Samity limited selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed adding back AMC charges of Rs. 1,06,050/-, meeting soil testing charges of Rs.2,02,997/-, rent of Rs. 1,25,000/- and survey and drawing charges

TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

64,789/- Copy of Auditor's Report (424), Audited Properties Private Limited (Page no. 428 of the Balance Sheet (428), Bank statement, AACCL1422A paper book) (439), Incorporation certificate (440), Income Tax Return Acknowledgement (441), Master data as appearing on MCA (442), details of directors as appearing on MCA (442),- Memotandum and Articles of Association (443),. Copy of PAN Card

ROHIT JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 548/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rohit Jaiswal Dcit, Circle 49(1) Vs Aj-55, Sector-It, Salt 169, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Lake, Kolkata-700 091 Bose Rd, West Bengal Kolkata-700 014 West Bengal [Pan : Acipj7386G] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

housing loan of ₹4 crore was taken and the remaining amount has been paid from the personal bank account of the assessee as well as his wife. Another immovable property was purchased for a consideration of ₹3 crores and for making the said purchase, assessee took loan of ₹2.09 cr. from Punjab National Bank and the remaining amount has been

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee