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

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

83 ITD 649 (ITAТ- Мит) (2002), it was\nthe question that whether the expenditure to make a residential house\nhabitable will be included in the cost of new asset? The words used about\nthe amount spent on purchase of new asset are 'cost thereto' and not 'price\nthereto'. The cost includes purchase as well. Consequently, the words used\nsignify that

FALCON VINCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PR.CIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Falcon Vincon Private Limited Vs. Pr. Cit-3, Kolkata 102, Tower No.12, Shriram Sameeksha, New Gangamma Gudi Police Station Road, Naidu Layout, Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf3203C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

2 Falcon Vincon Private Limited 3. That without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds of appeal, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on a debatable issue as was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgement dated 20th March, 2019 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunil

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

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. Ltd. The said investment in Right to Property was a capital asset and was shown in the Audited Accounts as Investment in Right to Property' under the head 'Investments - Current and Non-current investments', refer Note II of the audited accounts. The investment in Right to Property was never considered as 'stock in trade' by the assessee

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

2 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. integral part of the rental income and the same are assassable under the head “business income” instead of “income from house property”. 3. The assessee in the present case is a real estate company with its principal business being collection

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

2 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. integral part of the rental income and the same are assassable under the head “business income” instead of “income from house property”. 3. The assessee in the present case is a real estate company with its principal business being collection

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

2 I.T.A. No. 1183 to 1185/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Indian City Properties Ltd.. integral part of the rental income and the same are assassable under the head “business income” instead of “income from house property”. 3. The assessee in the present case is a real estate company with its principal business being collection

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]

2 of the section 54, amount utilized by the assessee for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139 for the year in which transfer took place, shall qualify for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, the AO is hereby directed to enhance the amount of exemption

SRI RAMKRISHNA SAMITY,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T.CIR - 2,SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

house property, interest income and donations received from various donors under the head income from other sources. This action was upheld by the Learned CITA for the same reason. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal for the Asst Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 before us. 4. The Learned AR argued that the donations received by the assessee have been

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 ]

2 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), the Assessee contended that income generated from shopping space is not 'Income from House Property’ as the assessee is neither an owner not a deemed owner. The Assessee pointed out that it acquired the property only under a license agreement

M/S HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

Housing Complex for home to its staff situated at a nearby plot of land containing an area of 1.6 acres more or less situated within the sapid Mouzas Bardhanyaghata and Kismatdhanyaghata within P.S Sutahata in the district of Midnapore which HEIL holds as a lessee for a period of 30 years with effect from 12th September 1981. d) Also together

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

property reported in TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during

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

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

2,36,00,000/-. The details of the payment claimed in the computation was as below:- March 2011 Rs 95,44,467 September 2011 Rs 10,82,850 --------------------- Rs 1,06,27,317 3.3. The ld AO observed that the assessee was not eligible for any deduction u/s 54 or 54F of the Act from the aforesaid Short Term Capital

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

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

83,93,827/- to 6,44,193/-.” Aggrieved, now revenue as well as assessee came in appeal before Tribunal against restriction of disallowance at 1%. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that for the relevant AY 2007-08 Rule 8D is not applicable because the same was introduced

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]

83,93,827/- to 6,44,193/-.” Aggrieved, now revenue as well as assessee came in appeal before Tribunal against restriction of disallowance at 1%. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that for the relevant AY 2007-08 Rule 8D is not applicable because the same was introduced

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

83,93,827/- to 6,44,193/-.” Aggrieved, now revenue as well as assessee came in appeal before Tribunal against restriction of disallowance at 1%. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that for the relevant AY 2007-08 Rule 8D is not applicable because the same was introduced