AASHIRVAD VILLA LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 1372/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aashirvad Villa Limited,.........................Appellant 21A, Belvedere Road, Kolkata-700027 [Pan: Aaecs6659N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-4(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2024

house property and the business loss was duly adjusted with the capital gain, which was permitted under section 71(2) of the Act. Ld. A.R. further

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

71,600 X 1081/100 Rs.9,15,77,996 Long Term Capital Gain ₹12,35,377” 05. Thereafter, the ld. AO mentioned that the case was referred to District Valuation Officer (DVO) on 30.10.2018 for valuation of the property as per proposal of DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata-1, however, till date Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Bahadurs Marwari Hindu Hospital

ARUS PROPERTIES LLP,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., EXEMPT - 1, CIRCLE - 1(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 533/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Arus Properties Llp,………………………..….…Appellant 7B, Pretoria Street, ‘Alom House’, Kolkata-700071 [Pan:Abcfa4787H] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Exempt-1, Circle-1(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

section 71 & 72 of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/10/2025. (Rajesh Kumar) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Accountant Member Vice-President Kolkata, the 31st day of October, 2025 4 Arus Properties LLP Copies to :(1) Arus Properties

THE W.B STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-54,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property. This ground of objection of revenue was consequential in nature and does not require any fresh adjudication. Therefore the direction issued by the Id. CIT(A) to the AO is correct as evidenced from the order of the Id. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Thus while the issue relating

THE W.B. STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2006-07

house property. This ground of objection of revenue was consequential in nature and does not require any fresh adjudication. Therefore, the direction issued by the Id. CIT(A) to the AO is correct as evidenced from the order of the Id. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Thus while the issue relating

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

properties for one or more of the objects of the trust as the Trustees may from time to time determine.” 5. The assessee responded that as per the above clause of the Trust Deed, the trustees were within their powers to utilise the corpus fund for charitable purpose and by necessary implication, the fund is deemed to have been utilised

TIRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,1,GIBSON LANE, SUITE 213, 2ND FLOOR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, GARIAHAT ROAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1965/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Vs Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata C/O: Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Apmps 8395 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Kumar Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21/08/2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, On The Following Grounds :- 1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,82,18,524/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Oil & Fuel Expenses. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 53,40,091/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Truck Running Expenses As Against 80,35,546/-Claimed By The Assessee. 3. (A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 3,71,736/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Finance Charges Paid For Acquisition Of Self Occupied House Property.

71,736/- made by the A.O. on account of finance charges paid for acquisition of self occupied house property. 2 (b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted appropriate relief as per the provision of section

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

71 (Calcutta) and IL & FS Energy Development\nCompany Ltd. (supra). It is further stated that in view of the decision\nof Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra) the\ndisallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot be considered for the purpose\nof section 115JB of the Act.\n7.9 We have considered the facts of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITMAN COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

71,04,839/- was deemed income for AY 2014-15 u/s 43CA of the Act. 1.1. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'], the ld. Counsel for the assessee mainly reiterated the arguments advanced before the ld. AO which may be briefly summarized: a) The JDA contained a specific Clause

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

house property which was carried forward has also been denied. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of not granting tax credit in respect of taxes withheld on the foreign income earned by the assessee and credit claimed in accordance with section

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

71,141.00 23,26,196.00 Add:Disallowable Expenditure under section 36 of the Income Tax Act 1961 P.F 30,546.00 Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts 38,077.00 Provision for Leave Salary 5,00,000.00 Donation 20,000.00 Gift 18,600,.00 6,07,223.00 Add: Disallowable Expenditure under Section 37 Software purchase being capital 25,000.00 expenditure debited in profit

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

71,141.00 23,26,196.00 Add:Disallowable Expenditure under section 36 of the Income Tax Act 1961 P.F 30,546.00 Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts 38,077.00 Provision for Leave Salary 5,00,000.00 Donation 20,000.00 Gift 18,600,.00 6,07,223.00 Add: Disallowable Expenditure under Section 37 Software purchase being capital 25,000.00 expenditure debited in profit

VAIBHAV DAS MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house properties situated in India and Income from Capital gains and income from other sources. The appellant had earned the following income from outside India (Singapore) which was subject to tax in both India and Singapore: Salary income from Singapore during AY 2021-22, total foreign source income taxed in India of Rs. 99,84,781/- for salary earned

BAGHMARI TEA COMPANY LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

house property and also from other sources. The assessee filed return 2 I.T.A. No.937/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Baghmari Tea Company Ltd. of income and also filed revised return of income showing the revised total income of Rs. 13,98,830/-. As per revised return of income the composite income from the tea business had been

JASPAL SINGH BINDRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed and the Ld

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

house property and profit in share. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 139(1) on 31.10.2022 declaring total income of ₹6,76,96,410/-. The assessee is an Individual and a Resident of India and regularly assessed to tax. During the year under consideration, he earned Pension from Standard Chartered Pension (SCD) Overseas, UK of Rs.1

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

71,75,123/- made by the A.O on\naccount of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to\nrestrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend\nincome to the assessee company during the year.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in directing