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

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

74,68,9801-. From the assessee's audited financial accounts, I find that the assessee had its own financial base. Assessee owned considerable fixed assets besides other current assets. As such on the facts I find that the appellant is not a mere paper company as alleged by the AO which are engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries

MANISH BHAI,KOLKAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2174/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Manish Bhai -Vs- Acit, Circle-22, Kolkata . [Pan: Advb 8328 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 30.12.2011 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of HRA made by the AO at Rs. 2,80,349/-. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming

ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAGHU NANDAN MODI, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

74,081/- (in round figure it is Rs.14,00,000/-) and accordingly the balance addition is directed to be deleted. However, so far taxing the rental value is concerned, the AO was justified to invoke section 28(iv) of the IT Act because the sequence of events clearly suggest that the idea of apportioning as part time employee was afterthought

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

house is on rent to EIH Limited and if a property is actually let out, then the expectation of its letting out becomes an actual reality and such property cannot be expected to let from year to year at any figure higher than the rent which is being produced actually by the property in question. Hence, even

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

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]

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 of a demerger, the accumulated loss and the allowance for unabsorbed depreciation of the demerged company

DILIP KUMAR CHOWDHARY ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2460/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dilip Kumar Chowdhary………….…………………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant 545, G.T. Road (South) 6Th Floor Howrah – 711 101 [Pan : Acdpc 4418 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-46, Kolkata……........................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

house is actually let’. This also shows that the expression ‘property is let’ cannot mean actual letting out of the property because had it been so, there was be no need to use the word ‘actually’ in sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act. Applying the purposive interpretation, the expression ‘property is let’ has to be read

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

ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT MADHU DEVI SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

House Property income at R.4,20,000/- without any logic or on the basis of any documents instead of Rs.8,40,000/- determining on the basis of report of Departmental inspector. (iv) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at any time of hearing.” Shri Arinram Bhattacharjee, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

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

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SDV INTERNATION LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

properties were given on rent by the concerned employees, it was not permissible to the assessee company as a deductor to allow the interest portion only. He held that the employees who had been allowed exemption for house rent allowance on the basis of rent paid thus were not entitled to deduction on account of interest on housing loan

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SDV INTERNATION LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

properties were given on rent by the concerned employees, it was not permissible to the assessee company as a deductor to allow the interest portion only. He held that the employees who had been allowed exemption for house rent allowance on the basis of rent paid thus were not entitled to deduction on account of interest on housing loan

SDV INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

properties were given on rent by the concerned employees, it was not permissible to the assessee company as a deductor to allow the interest portion only. He held that the employees who had been allowed exemption for house rent allowance on the basis of rent paid thus were not entitled to deduction on account of interest on housing loan

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

House Property income was assessed in pursuance to Provisions of Section 23 and as such, the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Kolkata is bad in law. 3 I.T.A. No. 84/Kol/2019 I.T.A. No. 2389/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 JCT Limited. 3. That the appellant craves leave to supplement, substitute, add, alter, amend, cancel or otherwise modify

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

House Property income was assessed in pursuance to Provisions of Section 23 and as such, the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Kolkata is bad in law. 3 I.T.A. No. 84/Kol/2019 I.T.A. No. 2389/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 JCT Limited. 3. That the appellant craves leave to supplement, substitute, add, alter, amend, cancel or otherwise modify