DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

83,278/- on account of service charges was brought to tax by him in the hands of the assessee. 4. The action of the A.O. in treating the service charges as income from house property instead of business income was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

83,278/- on account of service charges was brought to tax by him in the hands of the assessee. 4. The action of the A.O. in treating the service charges as income from house property instead of business income was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made

BOMBAY PLAZA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

section 27(iiib) of the Act does not arise at all. 6. Without prejudice to our above claim that the assessee is not assessable to 'Income from house property' as it is neither an owner nor a deemed owner, the Assessee further submitted that the Assessee was formed with the main objectives of carrying on the business of an investment

SRI PRADEEP SINGH GURUNG,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 54 of the Act should within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place, purchase or within a period of three years after the date constructed one residential house in India then only the assessee qualifies for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. According

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

House Property at Plot H-33 , Sector 39, Noida for the sum of Rs 92,78,963/- should not be added to the total income for Asst Year 2012-13. The assessee had filed submission against the show cause and claimed that in respect of the receipt of consolidated sale price for sale of land and building – capital gain from

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

house property'. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No orders as to costs." 5.5 Applying the ratio laid down in the latest decision of the Apex Court, I find that the appellant's case squarely falls within the said ratio. In the assessee

JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

house property”. Therefore, AO has examined the issue relating to income from commercial go- down and then took a possible view, hence order passed by AO u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 is not erroneous. Apart from this, the ld. Counsel also pointed out that in assessee`s case a search and seizure operation was conducted under section

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

property and shares and accordingly, claim of deduction u/s.54 and 54F has been justified. Kusumlata Sonthalia Assessment Year:2010-11 5.4 Considering the above facts as available in assessment record, I find that the contention of the Ld. AR that the issue of eligibility u/s.54 /54F was examined by the AO is only with respect to examination of "date

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

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATQ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

83,38,635/-. 2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appealof the assessee by observing and holding as under:- “7.3 I do not concur with the contentions so raised by the appellant in view of the valid observation made by the assessing officer in the assessment order which are reproduced as below: The deed of conveyance

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

83,906/- as compared to last year. Similarly the net profit going by last year/s rate would have been a net loss of Rs. 1,39,58,248/- (10,60,65,717 * (-) 13.16%), while the net profit for the year is Rs. 1,15,292/- , which is higher by Rs. 1,40,73,540/- as compared to last year

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

PIYUSH MOHAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

house property and further at the time of computing LTCG as claiming the same Interest as direct expenses related to transfer of capital asset. The assessee has failed to completely disclose its true and correct income by non-furnishing of details as required under provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O. has passed the assessment order without making enquiries

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1325/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Madhu Devi Saraf [Pan: Alips 0989 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property on her. She also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. CIT reported in [1971] 82 ITR 570; decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Divya Devi reported in [1996] 217 ITR 824 & the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

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

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

SHREE KUMAR BANGUR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

house property after reducing Rs.1,55,159 from the assessee’s share of gross rent of the property. The alternative submission of the assessee to allow deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act @ 30% of Rs 1,55,159 is rejected accordingly” 5. The Ld. AR also pointed out that in the assessee’s own case