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]

69,10,115/- 7. According to AO, it is evident from the revised computation filed during the course of hearing that the assessee has accepted the inadmissibility of the claim of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of Section 54EC and also the claim of investment of Rs.3,50,000/- and have recomputed the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.69

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

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

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

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

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

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

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

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

69 of the Act." 4.12 Apart from these judgments of the Delhi High Court, the AIR also placed before me the following decisions of other High Courts where the unanimous view was that no addition u/s 68 in respect of share application money is permissible once the assessee shows that there was genuine issuance of the equity shares

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69,326/- as estimated by the AO. 5. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that the issue in hand is covered by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Kapil Kr. Agarwal reported in (2016) 66 taxman. Com 191 (P & H) and referred to paras 16 & 17 of the said order and argued

ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEVA LEASE AND FINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Acit Circle-15(1), V/S. M/S Deva Lease & Aayaka Bhawan,Poorva Finance Pvt. Ltd., 1A, 110, Shantipally, Kolkta- K.B.R. Complex, 4, Ho- 107 Chi-Min Sarani, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcd 7839 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O. No.54/Kol/2017 (A/O Ita No.961/Kol/2017) Assessment Year :2012-13 M/S Deva Lease & V/S. Acit, Circle-15(1), Finance Pvt. Ltd., 1A, Aaykar Bhavan, Poorva, K.B.R. Complex, 4, Ho- 110, Shantipally, Chi-Min Sarani, Kolkata- Kolakta-107 71 [Pan No.Aabcd 7839 E] .. "तया"ेपक/Co-Objector ""यथ"/Respondent

69,052/- derived in the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer appears to have computed the impugned disallowance in the nature of direct expenses, proportionate interest and administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(1)(i) to (iii) involving sums of ₹16,257/- paid towards security transaction tax, ₹11,17,790/- and ₹2,17,750/-; respectively totalling

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

M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Properties; [2012] 206 Taxmann 584 (Bom.) 6 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd  Viswas Promoters P. Ltd. v. ACIT; [2013] 29 taxmann.com 19 (Madras)  Madanlal Gupta vs. CIT 9 Taxmann.com 235  ACIT vs. Ashiana Amar Developers, 178 TTJ 424 (ITAT Kolkata)  CBDT Circular No. 205/3/2001/ITA-II dated 4th May 2001  Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. DCIT

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

house property was a possible view. Hence, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is based on wrong

SWARUP KUMAR ROY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

69,192/-. There might be some error in the return form, which has been construed by the CPC, Bengaluru as house property income in the hands of the assessee. The assessee does not own any house property, which is generating rental income except a flat, where he is residing. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through

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

house property income and allowing deduction of expenses and depreciation instead of deduction of 30% of annual rental value. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the upward adjustment of Rs.1,39,69,200/- ignoring provisions of section

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

house property income and allowing deduction of expenses and depreciation instead of deduction of 30% of annual rental value. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the upward adjustment of Rs.1,39,69,200/- ignoring provisions of section

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

M/S H.C. COMMERCIAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN.CIR.-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. H. C. Commercial Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Middleton Row, Kolkata- Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- 700071. 2(1), Kolkata. (Pan: Aabch2665N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1037682272(1) Dated 10.12.2021 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Central Circle-2(1),Kolkata Dated 28.01.2016. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: 1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A)-20, Kolkata On 10.12.2021 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.Lt.(A) Was Wrong In Dittoing The Order Of The A.O. & Confirming The Disallowance U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii), 0.5% Of Average Investment Amounting To Rs.5,00,482/- (Rs.9,00,375/- Minus Rs.4,00,563/-) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That The A.O. Was Not Deducted The Income From Which Is Taxable During The Year & The Amount Of Rs.400,563/- Has Already Added Back To The Return Income, So, Rs.5,00,482/- Cannot Be Part For The Disallowance & Wrongly Calculated U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal.

section 24 of the Act. Ld. AO held that since the assessee is allowed deduction @ 30% as expenses from the income earned from the house property, this expense is not allowable against the income from house property. Accordingly, he held that the claim of this expense is not admissible u/s. 23 and 24 of the Act as debited

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

69 to 84 of the paper book. DVO in his report has clearly mentioned that reference to him was made by the Assessing Officer under section 55A of the Act. He determined the value of 12.97 Kattah of land as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.11,90,000/-. At this juncture, a look at section 55A becomes necessary. This is reproduced hereunder