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

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

section 54F(1)\nwhich says that \"net consideration\", in relation to the transfer of a capital\nasset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a\nresult of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure\nincurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.\nIn CIT vs. Miss Piroja C. Patel

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) ..

property. This amendment will take effect from 1st April. 2001 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2001-2002 and subsequent years. 14. We note that ld A.O was fully satisfied on the explanation of the assessee in regard to the long term capital gain earned from selling of shares of M/s Benzo Chem Industries Private

SUGAM REALTY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

house property’. Ld. AO noticed that there are certain units which remained vacant throughout the year but the assessee failed to declare notional rent on such vacant units. Ld. AO thereafter, mentioned the provisions of Section 23 of the Act and by applying Section 23(4) of the Act, computed the notional rent of the vacant units

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

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

79,49,838/- and confirmed disallowance of the balance sum. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) were as follows: “4.8 From the rival contentions the first issue which needs to be decided is whether for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) "Upohar the Condoville" set up on land admeasuring 18.62 acres should be considered to be single in divisible

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

house property. The revenue's appeal was dismissed by the ITAT, Chennai Bench and the order of the ld. CIT(A) was upheld. 3.7. From these judicial pronouncements, it is very much clear that if the property is purchased from borrowed funds then consideration for the purchased amount, the interest on borrowed fund also has to be paid. The amount

PARAKH KOTHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14

79,230/-. It is the contention of the appellant that set off of the loss as claimed under the head 'other sources' has wrongly been denied. Accordingly, it was submitted that the loss of the current year under the head 'other sources' of R.4,73,140/- should be allowed to be set off against the house property income. The basic

M/S H.C. COMMERCIAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN.CIR.-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. H. C. Commercial Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Middleton Row, Kolkata- Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- 700071. 2(1), Kolkata. (Pan: Aabch2665N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1037682272(1) Dated 10.12.2021 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Central Circle-2(1),Kolkata Dated 28.01.2016. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: 1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A)-20, Kolkata On 10.12.2021 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.Lt.(A) Was Wrong In Dittoing The Order Of The A.O. & Confirming The Disallowance U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii), 0.5% Of Average Investment Amounting To Rs.5,00,482/- (Rs.9,00,375/- Minus Rs.4,00,563/-) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That The A.O. Was Not Deducted The Income From Which Is Taxable During The Year & The Amount Of Rs.400,563/- Has Already Added Back To The Return Income, So, Rs.5,00,482/- Cannot Be Part For The Disallowance & Wrongly Calculated U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal.

section 24 of the Act. Ld. AO held that since the assessee is allowed deduction @ 30% as expenses from the income earned from the house property, this expense is not allowable against the income from house property. Accordingly, he held that the claim of this expense is not admissible u/s. 23 and 24 of the Act as debited

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA MUMBAI TRUCK TERMINAL LTD, HOWRAH

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

79,428/- ( 10,60,65,717 * 12.52%) while the gross profit for the year is Rs. 2,56,63,334/- which is higher by Rs. 1,23,83,906/- as compared to last year. Similarly the net profit going by last year/s rate would have been a net loss

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

house property for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. In the present case, the assessee had sold 4 depreciable assets/f1ats during the year belonging to the same Block of Assets - Building. The opening WDV of the said Block was Rs.1,33,21,798/-. The sale consideration received from these 4 properties was more than the Opening

METSIL EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT CEN.-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

79 of the Act were attracted. The ld. Pr. CIT also found that ld. AO had not carried out any enquiry whatsoever in this regard. 2.2. Aggrieved with this action of ld. Pr. CIT, the appellant is before us through the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

ITO WARD-41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAMAL BANERJEE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 143(3)/254/251, in respect of assessment year 1993-94 was the same, and the assessee accepted the same without preferring any appeal. As a matter of fact, the revenue has never produced any such material in support of its contention. On the other hand, vide page No. 104 and 106 of the paper book the assessee produced

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TOLLYGUNGE ESTATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

house property income) to claim of statutory deduction u/s. 24(a) to the extent of Rs.579,725/-. No further claim of repairs relating to building whose income is assessable under the head of property income should be allowed. The AO is directed to segregate the repairs expenditure to the extent of Rs.40,70,426/- under the head building repair

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TOLLYGUNGE ESTATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

house property income) to claim of statutory deduction u/s. 24(a) to the extent of Rs.579,725/-. No further claim of repairs relating to building whose income is assessable under the head of property income should be allowed. The AO is directed to segregate the repairs expenditure to the extent of Rs.40,70,426/- under the head building repair

M/S. MANGILALL ESTATES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

section 50C in statute. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the plea of the appellant that even if sec 50C is made applicable, stamp duty val9uation as on the date of agreement should be adopted and not of the date of registration. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, to delete from or substantiate

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 30(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

79,011/- and 100% of Mobile Expenses Rs. 43,910, thus aggregating to Rs. 1,22,921. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the C.I.T (A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance U/s 24 of the Act of interest of Rs. 52,771/- on the Housing Loan with total disregard to the provisions