FALCON VINCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PR.CIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Falcon Vincon Private Limited Vs. Pr. Cit-3, Kolkata 102, Tower No.12, Shriram Sameeksha, New Gangamma Gudi Police Station Road, Naidu Layout, Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf3203C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

House Property" and assessed as such under scrutiny assessment (ii) It is submitted that the primary object clause of the Memorandum of Association does not state that the business of the Assessee is of renting of property. The Assessee Company has purchased the property with the intention of letting it out and to earn rental income from the same

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and provisions of Section\n54F were/are applicable to all other assets, not being a residential house. In J.R.\nSubramanya Bhat (supra), Karnataka High Court noticed language of Section 54 which\nstipulated that the assessee should within one year from the date of transfer purchase, or\nwithin a period of two years thereafter, construct a residential house to avail

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

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

section 54F makes\nit clear that the sale consideration not utilised by the assessee for\npurchasing or construction of residential house property shall be\ndeposited in the Capital Gain Accounts in accordance with the\nprovisions of Capital Gain Accounts Scheme, 1988. Also the assessee\nshall not have more than one residential house other than the new\nresidential house property

SMT TARAMONI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

7 proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has received a sum of Rs.92,129/- from Dishnet Wireless Limited for allowing to use the roof of her house for installation of tower and the said amount is declared in the return under the head “income from house property” after claiming standard deduction under section

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, 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)

section 54 of the Act. Besides, on the date of transfer or relinquishment, the assessee was owner of more than two existing house property, therefore, the assessee is not Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty ITA No.400/Kol/2016 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee

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)

section 54 of the Act. Besides, on the date of transfer or relinquishment, the assessee was owner of more than two existing house property, therefore, the assessee is not Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty ITA No.400/Kol/2016 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee

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

house property income’. The return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and this stand of the assessee was 7 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited accepted by the ld. Assessing Officer. Copy of the assessment order dated 16.03.2015 passed under section

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. The appellant has further submitted that this particular issue had been dealt with by the Inspecting Appellate Commissioner (IAC) in its own case for AY 1978-79; copy of which was placed on record. In that year the AO had taxed the service charges received from tenants under the head “house property” along with

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. The appellant has further submitted that this particular issue had been dealt with by the Inspecting Appellate Commissioner (IAC) in its own case for AY 1978-79; copy of which was placed on record. In that year the AO had taxed the service charges received from tenants under the head “house property” along with

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. The appellant has further submitted that this particular issue had been dealt with by the Inspecting Appellate Commissioner (IAC) in its own case for AY 1978-79; copy of which was placed on record. In that year the AO had taxed the service charges received from tenants under the head “house property” along with

ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

house property was at Rs.1,24,77,351/-. 7. Based on these facts, narrated above, the main issue before the assessing officer was that whether the assessee was eligible to claim exemption under section

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

7. We further noticed that the ld. Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee is not permitted to adjust the house property loss except for the self-occupied property against other income. Provision of section

BIP DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

7 of 11 conclusion drawn in A.Y. 2006-07, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction to the assessee under the head “income from house property” in accordance with section

OBEROI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1204/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2859E (Assessee) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Oberoi Buildings & Investments Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2860 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri A. K. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Acit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee(Group Companies` Appeals), Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, In Respect Of M/S Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Andm/S Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Which Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd.

section 27(iiib) of the I. T. Act, 1961 and findings of the Apex Court of the country stated above, the assessee is the owner of the building or shopping space. Therefore, the income derived from the said building or shopping space are to be taxed under the head “income from House property. 5. Aggrieved by the order

OBEROI BUILDINGS & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1204/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2859E (Assessee) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Oberoi Buildings & Investments Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2860 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri A. K. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Acit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee(Group Companies` Appeals), Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, In Respect Of M/S Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Andm/S Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Which Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd.

section 27(iiib) of the I. T. Act, 1961 and findings of the Apex Court of the country stated above, the assessee is the owner of the building or shopping space. Therefore, the income derived from the said building or shopping space are to be taxed under the head “income from House property. 5. Aggrieved by the order

BOMBAY PLAZA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

House Property' only on fulfilling the following conditions: a) Income should be derived from a property consisting of any building or lands appurtenant thereto b) The assessee is the owner of the said property c) The property should not be used for the purpose of business or profession carried on by him, the profits of which are chargeable to income

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]

7, 2007, the land and the construction thereon were to be divided in a certain ratio as between the developer and the assessee. It was also the developer’s obligation under the agreement to make the construction or cause such construction to be made on the land. The possession that was made over by the assessee to the developer

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]

7, 2007, the land and the construction thereon were to be divided in a certain ratio as between the developer and the assessee. It was also the developer’s obligation under the agreement to make the construction or cause such construction to be made on the land. The possession that was made over by the assessee to the developer