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

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 Property at Plot H-33 , Sector 39, Noida for the sum of Rs 92,78,963/- should not be added to the total income for Asst Year 2012-13. The assessee had filed submission against the show cause and claimed that in respect of the receipt of consolidated sale price for sale of land and building – capital gain from

SANJEEB KUMAR SINGH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 24(a) against the enhanced rental income of Rs. 3,36,000/-.” 8. The brief facts of the case is that during the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the AO for A.Y. 2013-14 of order dated 09.03.2016 has added an amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- to assessee’s total income as income from house

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

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80-IB(10)(a) of the Act is "shall", but it would not necessarily mean that in every case, it shall be taken to be mandatory requirement instead would depend upon the intent of the Legislature and not the language in which the provision is clothed. The meaning and the intent of the Legislature would be gathered

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

section 23 of the Act in assessing the house property income. The 30% deduction on such service charges was allowed in computing the house property income. M/s. National Engineering Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ITA Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 7. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved by the order

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

section 23 of the Act in assessing the house property income. The 30% deduction on such service charges was allowed in computing the house property income. M/s. National Engineering Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ITA Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 7. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved by the order

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

65,68,750/- the index cost of which worked out to 3,73,85,897/-. However, in the ITR filed for the current assessment year, the index cost was taken at ₹37,50,41,756/-, which is more by ₹1,18,819/-and has to be reduced accordingly. The ld. AO further noted that the assessee has claimed deduction

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA MUMBAI TRUCK TERMINAL LTD, HOWRAH

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

65,717 * (-) 13.16%), while the net profit for the year is Rs. 1,15,292/- , which is higher by Rs. 1,40,73,540/- as compared to last year. It is thus ITA Nos. 1189/K/12, 736/K/11 & 1190/K/12-C-AM 6 Deptt Vs. M/s. Cal. Mum Truck Terminal Ltd & P.Ltd- clear that the application of ratio has been misapplied by the Learned

M/S/ SINGHANIA MERLIN ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

65,107 sq.ft. – 3,57,600 sq.ft). On verification of the list of the allottees, it was observed that in many cases more than one flat (like 1BHK, 2BHK and 3BHK measuring more than 1500 sq.ft.) had been allotted to the same person / related person(s). It is also seen that though the flats were booked in the year

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACTR1297C Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AR Revenue by : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, DR Date of hearing: 05.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 19.12.2024 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred

ITO WARD-41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAMAL BANERJEE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 154/143(3)/251/254 of the Act and assessed the income at 1,07,20,210/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of learned AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to learned CIT and the CIT by way of impugned order treated the income from Bani Bhawan as income from business and deleted the additions made on that

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

house property for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. In the present case, the assessee had sold 4 depreciable assets/f1ats during the year belonging to the same Block of Assets - Building. The opening WDV of the said Block was Rs.1,33,21,798/-. The sale consideration received from these 4 properties was more than the Opening

JANAMANGAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,HALDIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janamangal Samabay Krishi Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(1), Unnayan Samity Limited Vs Haldia Dharmadasbar, Contai Purba Medinipur - 721401 [Pan : Aabaj2517P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Deduction U/S 80P For Whole Of The Profit Of Rs. 65,16,054/ For Business Of Banking/Providing Credit Facility Was Not Allowed As Per Order U/S 250 By The Ld. Cit Appeal Nfac, Of Appellant Assessee Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited A Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act Engage In The Business Of Supporting Agricultural Development. As Per Order U/S 250 A Proportion Of This Profit Was Allowed U/S 80P Of Rs. 22,65,866/ By Disallowing The Balance Amount Of Rs. 42,50,188/ Without Allowing The Deduction U/S Sop. The Basis Of Proportion For Allowance & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Clear To The Assessee. According To The Assessee Cost & Profit Allocation Should Be Based On Allocation Of Fund To Deposit Investment & Loan Disbursement. Therefore Assessee Is Completely Disagreed With The Opinion & Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal U/S 250 & Preferred For Appeal To Tribunal.”

65,866/- as against Rs.65,16,054/- made by the Assessing Officer. 6.1. Assessee has filed a computation sheet and also the calculation of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. First thing that we observe is that income from house property of Rs.2,20,000/- cannot be held to be eligible for deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

house is on rent to EIH Limited and if a property is actually let out, then the expectation of its letting out becomes an actual reality and such property cannot be expected to let from year to year at any figure higher than the rent which is being produced actually by the property in question. Hence, even

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

house is on rent to EIH Limited and if a property is actually let out, then the expectation of its letting out becomes an actual reality and such property cannot be expected to let from year to year at any figure higher than the rent which is being produced actually by the property in question. Hence, even

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

house is on rent to EIH Limited and if a property is actually let out, then the expectation of its letting out becomes an actual reality and such property cannot be expected to let from year to year at any figure higher than the rent which is being produced actually by the property in question. Hence, even

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

house is on rent to EIH Limited and if a property is actually let out, then the expectation of its letting out becomes an actual reality and such property cannot be expected to let from year to year at any figure higher than the rent which is being produced actually by the property in question. Hence, even