AASHIRVAD VILLA LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 1372/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aashirvad Villa Limited,.........................Appellant 21A, Belvedere Road, Kolkata-700027 [Pan: Aaecs6659N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-4(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2024

section 143(1), the ld. Assessing Officerassessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,77,370/- by not allowing loss from house property to be set off against capital gains without giving any intimation to the assessee and rejected the loss from house property amounting to Rs.87,143/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals

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

section 263 of the Act. The Ld. PCIT observed as under: 4. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the A/R of the assessee company. In this case, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.09.2021. It was observed from the assessment records and computation of income

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

section 263 of the Act are not satisfied and, therefore, the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act has been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

section 263 of the Act are not satisfied and, therefore, the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act has been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

section 263 of the Act are not satisfied and, therefore, the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act has been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

section 263 of the Act are not satisfied and, therefore, the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act has been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

83,02,934/- was not allowable as eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and is to be charged under the head ‘income from other sources’. Similarly interest of Rs.21,98,448/- received on personal loans and another amount of Rs. 1,76,490/- shown as interest on House Building Loan (HBL), being outside the line

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.”

83,00,000/- is Rs. 1,14,16,844/- i.e., at the rate of 14.58%. The gross interest earned from the members is Rs. 67,15,422/- which is worked out with the difference between the interest received from members and interest paid to members. Apart from the above, from business of banking services like providing locker facilities and miscellaneous

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

house properties' on the dissolution of the firm on 13-3-1961. In the memo of Page 8 of 18 I.T.A. No.: 1572/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chandra Bros. adjustment for income-tax purposes, however, the above sum was deducted on the ground that it was not assessable either as revenue or capital. The ITO issued a notice under section

TIRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,1,GIBSON LANE, SUITE 213, 2ND FLOOR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, GARIAHAT ROAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1965/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Vs Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata C/O: Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Apmps 8395 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Kumar Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21/08/2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, On The Following Grounds :- 1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,82,18,524/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Oil & Fuel Expenses. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 53,40,091/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Truck Running Expenses As Against 80,35,546/-Claimed By The Assessee. 3. (A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 3,71,736/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Finance Charges Paid For Acquisition Of Self Occupied House Property.

section 24(b) in regard to interest paid for acquisition of self occupied house property. 4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 3,52,603/- made by the A.O. on account of finance charges allegedly paid to M/s S.T.F. Co. Ltd without deduction

EMERALD COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house property at Rs. 3,60,000/- and interest on bank deposits at Rs. 58,298/-. Thereafter, he proceeded to draw the conclusion that the entire gamut of expenses claimed by the assessee were relatable to exempted income and were thus, required to be assessed u/s 14A of the Act. Incidentally, considering the specific directive in Section

CHATTERJEE RESOURCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD -11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1385/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Chatterjee Resource Developers Pvt. Limited,……………………………………….Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaecc2797F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...Respondent Ward-11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 31, 2025 O R D E R

83,600/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and on the basis of AIR information, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 28.08.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 18.05.2016 and served on the assessee on 31.05.2016 calling for certain details. In response

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

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 of Insurance

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

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 of Insurance

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

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 of Insurance

RAVI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

83,506/- and cost of acquisition of Rs. 86,38,98,998/- in the ITR for the AY 2018-19 thereby declaring a Short-Term Capital Loss of Rs. 40,76,15,492/-. Thereafter, Mr. Ravi Modi sold 25 cottahs and Mr. Mehul Mohanka through a conveyance deed dated 08.10.2021 in FY 2021-22 along with structure measuring 10531 square

SHILPI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

83,506/- and cost of acquisition of Rs. 86,38,98,998/- in the ITR for the AY 2018-19 thereby declaring a Short-Term Capital Loss of Rs. 40,76,15,492/-. Thereafter, Mr. Ravi Modi sold 25 cottahs and Mr. Mehul Mohanka through a conveyance deed dated 08.10.2021 in FY 2021-22 along with structure measuring 10531 square

RAHUL SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

section 143(3) of the Act on 28.08.2014. 08. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to allow the deduction u/s 54 of the Act as the assessee had already constructed the residential house on the said land over a period of time and the expenses incurred