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

house property loss except for the self-occupied property against other income. Provision of section 71 of the Act has a direct bearing on this issue and the same reads as under:- “72

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

72,18 which may kindly be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the estimation of rental income of property owned by the assessee by Rs.58,45,66 which may kindly be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

72,18 which may kindly be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the estimation of rental income of property owned by the assessee by Rs.58,45,66 which may kindly be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

72,18 which may kindly be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the estimation of rental income of property owned by the assessee by Rs.58,45,66 which may kindly be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

72,18 which may kindly be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the estimation of rental income of property owned by the assessee by Rs.58,45,66 which may kindly be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

72,500\n2,60,10,000\n5,46,52,500\n4.1. The Id. AO further noted that the assessee made payment of\n₹2,80,70,000/- to Bangalore NRI Complex Ltd. (Urbana Township) for\npurchase of land for construction of residential house at 783,\nAnandapur, Kolkata-700107 which was claimed by the assessee as\ninvestment for construction of residential

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 54F can not be denied on the ground that the 10 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. assessee has not deposited the long term capital gain in the specified bank account because the assessee has invested the amount of capital gain for construction of house in the residential property as stated hereinabove nonetheless not depositing the amount

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.”

72,702/- to the members against the deposits made by them of Rs.49,25,00,000/-. The average rate of interest paid by the Society on collection of deposits is 6.005%. Whereas the interest earned from the members on advancing the loans of Rs.7,83,00,000/- is Rs. 1,14,16,844/- i.e., at the rate

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

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

house on 03.10.2016 whereas the assessee sold the property on 09.12.2013. According to Ld. 6 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 AO, it meant that valuation was done after a lapse of three years from the transfer of property. Therefore, according to the Ld. CIT(A), the estimation of the cost of the property is not correct

ESJAY COMMERCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

house property as reported in the return. However, while computing the income from business and profession instead of reducing the rental income of Rs.72,30,427/-, CPC, Bengaluru reduced the amount of Rs.62,14,211/- from the net profit which has resulted in the increase in income from the business and profession by Rs.10,16,216/-. Aggrieved, assessee went

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

house properties' on the dissolution of the firm on 13-3-1961. In the memo of Page 8 of 18 I.T.A. No.: 1572/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chandra Bros. adjustment for income-tax purposes, however, the above sum was deducted on the ground that it was not assessable either as revenue or capital. The ITO issued a notice under section

DEBASISH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Debasish Banerjee…………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, 1, Gibson Lane, Kol- 700069.. [Pan: Agfpb3602C] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of An Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 30.04.2021 By Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata.

house property and income from other sources and the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,40,660/- for the year under consideration. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of “the assessee has reported sale consideration in the capital gain schedule of return of income, which is less than value

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

72,00,000/- crores on account of provision for mark to market loss\nboth under the normal provisions and while computing book profits under\nsection 115JB of the Act.\n2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals)\nerred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing period\nexpenditure amounting

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

72 ITR 62 (SC), it was clarified that expenditures contrary to statutory rule or regulation cannot be allowed as deduction under business profits In CIT v. Piara Singh (1980) 124 ITR 40 (SC), it was held that expenses incurred in violation of law (or to defeat the law) cannot be allowed, even if motivated by the exigencies of business

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

72 ITR 62 (SC), it was clarified that expenditures contrary to statutory rule or regulation cannot be allowed as deduction under business profits In CIT v. Piara Singh (1980) 124 ITR 40 (SC), it was held that expenses incurred in violation of law (or to defeat the law) cannot be allowed, even if motivated by the exigencies of business

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

72 ITR 62 (SC), it was clarified that expenditures contrary to statutory rule or regulation cannot be allowed as deduction under business profits In CIT v. Piara Singh (1980) 124 ITR 40 (SC), it was held that expenses incurred in violation of law (or to defeat the law) cannot be allowed, even if motivated by the exigencies of business