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

74,281/- under the head “Income from House Property”. We note that Part C of Chapter IV of the Act contains charging and computtion part of income from house property which is the complete code in itself and no deduction other than those mentioned in section

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

74,281/- under the head “Income from House Property”. We note that Part C of Chapter IV of the Act contains charging and computtion part of income from house property which is the complete code in itself and no deduction other than those mentioned in section

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

74,281/- under the head “Income from House Property”. We note that Part C of Chapter IV of the Act contains charging and computtion part of income from house property which is the complete code in itself and no deduction other than those mentioned in section

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

74,281/- under the head “Income from House Property”. We note that Part C of Chapter IV of the Act contains charging and computtion part of income from house property which is the complete code in itself and no deduction other than those mentioned in section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property. We note that the assessee has started the construction\nof the house within three years and therefore, the exemption u/s 54\nof the Act cannot be denied to the assessee on the ground that the\nconstruction of the house was not completed within the stipulated\nperiod. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of the\nHon

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

property at ₹5,18,74,075/-. Thereafter the ld. AO noted that the assessee has offered income from rental of ₹2,11,609/-, whereas according to DDIT, rent received was 32,595/- per month. Therefore, the ld. AO added a sum of ₹1,48,308 (₹148,126 + Rs.182) to the total income of the assessee. 06. In the appellate proceedings

SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

section 142(1) dated 08/02/2022 has been submitted also, So the claim of Rs. 1,96,19,238 is restricted to Rs. 94,44,635 and Rs 1,01,74,603 is disallowed for House Property

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

74,35,231/- for setting up a manufacturing unit. Subsequently, assessee decided to transfer the said land to one partnership firm M/s. S. M. Industries (SMI). 3.1. Agreement to sale was executed with partners of SMI on 28.04.2011 whereby the assessee agreed to transfer the said leasehold land for a consideration of Rs.2 Cr. Against this agreement to sale, assessee

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.”

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Considering the same, Rs.2,20,000/- has to be assessed under the head income from house property and after allowing the standard deduction of Rs.66,000/-, the remaining amount of Rs.1,54,000/- has to be taxed as income from house property. 6.1.1. Now, coming to the operational activities of the society

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

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

74,938/- was also included as other interest. The assessee had received commission of Rs. 97,706/- on non-life UIIC to the tune of Rs. 59,635/- and miscellaneous receipts to the tune of Rs.2,47,506/-, none of which were directly relatable to the principal business activities of the assessee and formed part of ineligible income

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

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD ,IDEAL CENTRE vs. CIRCLE-7(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

house property – Rs.1,43,894/- (d) Interest received on IT Refunds – Rs. 1,43,894/- 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the paper book dt. 18/09/2023 containing 94 pages and also made detailed submissions in support of its grounds of appeal. On the other hand, the ld. D/R supported the order

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

74,19,000/-. 3. That without prejudice to the contentions raised in Grounds Nos. (1) and (2) above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the excess management expenditure was hit by Explanation 1 to Section 37(1), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses

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

74,19,000/-. 3. That without prejudice to the contentions raised in Grounds Nos. (1) and (2) above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the excess management expenditure was hit by Explanation 1 to Section 37(1), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses

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

74,19,000/-. 3. That without prejudice to the contentions raised in Grounds Nos. (1) and (2) above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the excess management expenditure was hit by Explanation 1 to Section 37(1), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

74) [ITAT Mumbai] [Pages 171 -176 of Judicial PB]. 9. Ld. A.R. also referred to the reconciliation of the details of reversals during the year vis-a-vis the provisions made in earlier years alongwith details of disallowances made under section 43B of the Act in those respective years, filed before the ld. PCIT. The ld. A.R. also referred

AASHIRWAD VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

house property”, “Capital gains” and “Income from other sources”] or a company [the principal business of which is the business of trading in shares or 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