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 property for residential purpose within a period of one year from the date of sale of property. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue haspointed out that there was no real purchase and sales of properties and the assessee actually made profit by transferring or relinquishing her provisional letter of allotment after making full payments

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

section 23 of the Act could not be treated as rent chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. On the other hand, the activity of rendering services which resulted in the script of service charges was carried on by the assessee in a continuous and organized manner and the same therefore was chargeable

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

section 23 of the Act could not be treated as rent chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. On the other hand, the activity of rendering services which resulted in the script of service charges was carried on by the assessee in a continuous and organized manner and the same therefore was chargeable

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

section 23 of the Act could not be treated as rent chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. On the other hand, the activity of rendering services which resulted in the script of service charges was carried on by the assessee in a continuous and organized manner and the same therefore was chargeable

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

house for claiming exemption u/s 54F, the assessee had purchased three storied building for Rs.47,60,000/-. Such purchase was completed on 28.07.2010. In the impugned order the AO referring to the provisions of Section 54F observed that the property was purchased beyond the prescribed period of two years and therefore denied the benefit claimed by the assessee

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

house for claiming exemption u/s 54F, the assessee had purchased three storied building for Rs.47,60,000/-. Such purchase was completed on 28.07.2010. In the impugned order the AO referring to the provisions of Section 54F observed that the property was purchased beyond the prescribed period of two years and therefore denied the benefit claimed by the assessee

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

house property’. Ld. AO noticed that there are certain units which remained vacant throughout the year but the assessee failed to declare notional rent on such vacant units. Ld. AO thereafter, mentioned the provisions of Section 23 of the Act and by applying Section 23(4) of the Act, computed the notional rent of the vacant units

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

66,138 which may kindly be deleted.” 2.3 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2016-17 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that there is no infirmity found in estimation of rent Rs.17,38,800 and adding with the total income 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

66,138 which may kindly be deleted.” 2.3 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2016-17 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that there is no infirmity found in estimation of rent Rs.17,38,800 and adding with the total income 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

66,138 which may kindly be deleted.” 2.3 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2016-17 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that there is no infirmity found in estimation of rent Rs.17,38,800 and adding with the total income 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

66,138 which may kindly be deleted.” 2.3 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2016-17 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that there is no infirmity found in estimation of rent Rs.17,38,800 and adding with the total income which

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

66 taxman. Com 191 (P & H) and referred to paras 16 & 17 of the said order and argued that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s. 54 of the Act and prayed to allow the ground nos. 1 & 2 of assessee’s appeal challenging the denial of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. 6. On the other hand

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property, the assessee was not entitled to anything over and above the agreed rent. The said action of the AO has resulted in taxing notional income in the hands of the assessee, which never accrued and hence cannot be brought to tax. Accordingly, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and hence

BHABATARINI GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1) , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.2629/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Bhabatarini Griha Nirman Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central-12(1), Kolkata. Ltd. South Block, Ideal Plaza, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcb9211C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed In Case No.620/Cit(A)-4/C-12(1)/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reason Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition Dated 19.12.18 & On Account Of No Objection From The Revenue Side, We Condone Its 11 Days’ Delay In Filing Of The Main Appeal Stated To Be Attributable To Communication Gap & Compilation Of Necessary Records. The Main Appeal Is Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits.

Section 24 mandates the deductions which are to be the allowed in computation of income from house property. U/s. 24(a) the assessee gets a lump sum deduction of 30% I.T.A No.2629/Kol/2018 annual value. This deduction has been permitted in lieu of miscellaneous expenditure which the assessee is likely to incur towards the house property [including depreciation, repairs, collection charge