DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SATURDAY CLUB LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

81,516/- . The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee has received rent of Rs.78,49,798/- from M/s. Reliance Industries Limited. The finding recorded by the ld. Assessing

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

81,516/- . The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee has received rent of Rs.78,49,798/- from M/s. Reliance Industries Limited. The finding recorded by the ld. Assessing

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

81,516/- . The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee has received rent of Rs.78,49,798/- from M/s. Reliance Industries Limited. The finding recorded by the ld. Assessing

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The AO is directed to allow the deduction for such interest since the borrowed funds were used for business purposes. [The additional ground of appeal thus having become infructuous is dismissed].” 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Suffice to say, it has been elaborately discussed

ITO, WARD - 2(3), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

81,800/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold land admeasuring 58.3 decimal situated at Mouza-Debgram, Pargana-Baikunthapur, District Jalpaiguri vide six separate deeds for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/- and the entire capital gain arising from the said sale was claimed to be exempt by the assessee under section 54F on account

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

section 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On perusal of 2 Bani Broto Banerjee the record, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee was holding 99% share of Rainey Park Limited. The Guest House/Hotel was being run by the assessee and ultimately on account of losses faced by him, he has sold the property

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

section 23(1)(a) was called for only in case of vacant property and not where the property was actually let out since in the case of let out property, the assessee was not entitled to anything over and above the agreed rent. The said action of the AO has resulted in taxing notional income in the hands

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.

81,293/-, we note that assessee has made an investment in an immovable property from which income earned has been reported under the head “Income from House Property” after 8 M/s. H. C. Commercial Pvt. Ltd., A.Y: 2013-14 claiming standard deduction @ 30% as provided u/s. 24 of the Act. We also note that the significant portion of earning

M/S/ SINGHANIA MERLIN ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

81,42,455/- as eligible income for the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the IT Act, 1961. (ii) It was observed from the assessment record that the assessee firm had constructed 368 flats covering 3,57,600 sq.ft. built up area for 1BHK, 2BHK and 3BHK flats other than 555 saleable parking space covering area 1,07,507 sq.ft

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

81 (Born) have taken a view that Rule 8D of the IT. Rules will apply only for AYs 2008-09 and subsequent assessment years. It has also been laid down that the assessee has to make a claim (including a claim that no expenditure was incurred) with regard to expenditure incurred for earning: income which is not chargeable

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1309/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maa Amba Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aaecm 6507 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 22 of the Act and held that the warehouse was a property owned by the assessee and not used for business and therefore the income earned from letting out was in nature of ‘house property’ income. According to ld AO, it makes no difference if the assessee is formed with the object of developing & operating landed properties

WINDOW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

house property. He also found that assessee company had also claimed depreciation as per the ITR under Building Schedule @10% for the year in the computation of income and since no other deduction was allowable after the claim of 30% of standard deduction, the assessee had made excess claim of expenses of Rs.38,07,409/- under the head of depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S PAWAN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

81,251/- Less: Income taxable separately Rent : Rs.4,03,200/- Rs.48,78,051/- Less : Exempt income Dividend - 2,82,125 Tax free interest -2,94,975 : Rs.5,77,100/- Income from business : Rs.43,00,951/- Income from House Property Gross annual value -4,03,200 Less:deduction u/s 24(a) -1,20,960 : Rs.2,82,240/- Total Income : Rs45

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANUKA VENTURES PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1413/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 7883 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

81,810/-. The assessee showed agency commission income of Rs 3,57,08,634/- vide agreement dated 14.9.2011 , the quantum of which is dependent on the sale percentage at the premises owned by the company at 49/1, Leela Roy Sarani, Kolkata - 700019 in respect of property owned by the company and let out to M/s Pantaloon Retail (India

SHREE GURU REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

house property. 4. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving a direction to the A.O. u/s. 150 for verification of share capital and share premium amount raised by the assessee in the relevant year though the same was not the subject matter of the instant appeal

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

Housing Project Pvt. Lt. For purchase of 37 flats. The entire consideration of Rs. 12,57,82,542/- was paid on 30.08.2011 thereby acquiring a right on the 37 flats. This investment was claimed as a capital asset and shown in the audited accounts as 'Investment in Right to Property' ur.cer the head 'Investment - current and non-current." During this

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SATTVA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

81,030/-, which inter alia included House Property income of Rs.2,46,23,873/-. The Return was selected for scrutiny and in response to notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1), the assessee filed all details as desired by the Assessing Officer. In the computation of income filed before the Assessing Officer, it was inter alia shown that during

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

81 (Bom) has held that applicability of Rule 8D as prospective for and from AY 2008-09 and not retrospective. We further find that the assessee had already ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 offered and identified an amount of Rs.12,73,10,367/- and Rs.7,51,731/- being interest on loan