DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

property. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 35. We further note that identical view has been expressed by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the following cases holding that the flats which remained vacant and unsold, no deemed ALV thereof could be assessed as income u/s 23 of the Act. - C.R. Development

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

73 could be invoked, without meeting the tests laid down in Aman Portfolio's case (Supra), could be purely academic. Section 70 and section 71 of the Act meaning and interpretations are as under:- Section 70: set off of loss from one source against income from another source under the same head of income. (1)Save as otherwise provided

LOHIA SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 487/Kol/2012 A.Y 2008-09 M/S. Lohia Securities Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Kolkata Pan: Aaacl 5834A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 73 : Losses in speculation business: (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (2) (i) & (ii)*** *** *** *** *** *** *** (3) & (4) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Explanation- Where any part of the business of a company[other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads “Interest on securities”, “Income from house property

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

73(2) section 73A(2) or sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) of section 74, or sub-section (3) of section 74A, being the sections mentioned in section 139(3) of the Act. Section 72A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, in the case

ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORTUNE INTERFINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

house property”, “Capital gains” and “Income from other sources”], or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business

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) ..

1) of section 54F of the Act. The sale consideration of Rs. 47,42,255/- relating to Plot No. 11A was utilized by the assessee for purchasing the new house for a sum of Rs. 21,10,500/-, therefore, the exemption u/s 54F was allowable for a sum of Rs. 20,79,938/- (21,10,500 × 46,73

M/S JALAN CEMENT WORKS LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jalan Cement Works V/S. Cit, Kolkata-1 Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No Aayakar Bhawan, 202, 81, Netji Subhas Road, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 001 Square, Kolkata- [Pan No.: Aaacj6788R] 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

House property, capital gains and income from other sources. In the instant case the income of the assessee is mainly from long term capital gain, therefore it is out of the purview of the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. Income here means the net income. In this connection we rely in the order of Hon’ble High Court

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

73,998/- is the income of the year, which has been utilized towards application of income for the year. The balance application of income of Rs.66,67,929/- had been allowed wrongly as exemption u/s. 11, whereas the same was met out of the corpus fund leading to double deduction of Rs.66,67,929/-. Also, the utilization of the corpus

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and had claimed before the Hon'ble CIT(A) in writing during the first appellate proceedings that his taxable capital gains was for Rs.44,63,518 only. Sale proceeds of 3.55 Acres of land Rs.4,17,00,000/- Less: Cost of acquisition of 2.81 Acres of land in the hand

ITO, WD-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUVRIDHI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830 & 831/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) Vs. M/S Suvridhi Capital I.T.O., Ward – 2(4), Kolkata Markets Ltd. 516, Kamalalaya Centre, 156A, Lelin Sarani, Kolkata – 700 013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4092 F ( Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri G. H. Sema, Acit(Dr) Respondent By :Shri Ashis Kumar Rustogi, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Two Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2010-11, Are Directed By Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which Is In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertain To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Revenue`S Appeal In Ita No.830/Kol/2015, Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Taken As A Lead Case.

1) of the Act. The scope of ‘Total Income’ is defined in Section 5. Section 14 enumerates the five heads under which the income of an assessee falls to be charged. Sections 15-59 quantify the total income under different heads of income as per the rules specified for that head of income. Chapter VI deals with Aggregation of Income

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards Trademark and Copyright consultancy under the head "Professional Fees" as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO in the assessment proceeding. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards Trademark and Copyright consultancy under the head "Professional Fees" as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO in the assessment proceeding. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

1,61,52,877/- as the rent which was under charged by the appellant and accordingly assessed the same as deemed rent under the head “House Property”. I find that the fact that the appellant had let out the properties to M/s. KCT & Bros (Coal Sales) Limited more than 3 to 4 decades ago is not in dispute. This fact

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

1,61,52,877/- as the rent which was under charged by the appellant and accordingly assessed the same as deemed rent under the head “House Property”. I find that the fact that the appellant had let out the properties to M/s. KCT & Bros (Coal Sales) Limited more than 3 to 4 decades ago is not in dispute. This fact

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

1,61,52,877/- as the rent which was under charged by the appellant and accordingly assessed the same as deemed rent under the head “House Property”. I find that the fact that the appellant had let out the properties to M/s. KCT & Bros (Coal Sales) Limited more than 3 to 4 decades ago is not in dispute. This fact

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

73,83,433/- u/s 143(3) of the Act and penalty of ₹171,66,35,574/- was also imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by dismissing the ground of disallowance of expenses exceeding the prescribed limit

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

73,83,433/- u/s 143(3) of the Act and penalty of ₹171,66,35,574/- was also imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by dismissing the ground of disallowance of expenses exceeding the prescribed limit

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

73,83,433/- u/s 143(3) of the Act and penalty of ₹171,66,35,574/- was also imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by dismissing the ground of disallowance of expenses exceeding the prescribed limit