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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

section 23 of the Act could not be treated as rent chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. On the other hand, the activity of rendering services which resulted in the script of service charges was carried on by the assessee in a continuous and organized manner and the same therefore was chargeable

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

section 23 of the Act could not be treated as rent chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. On the other hand, the activity of rendering services which resulted in the script of service charges was carried on by the assessee in a continuous and organized manner and the same therefore was chargeable

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

section 23 of the Act could not be treated as rent chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. On the other hand, the activity of rendering services which resulted in the script of service charges was carried on by the assessee in a continuous and organized manner and the same therefore was chargeable

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

89,885/- 1,19,10,115/- Less: Exemption u/s. 54EC 50,00,000/- Net Long Term Capital Gain 69,10,115/- 7. According to AO, it is evident from the revised computation filed during the course of hearing that the assessee has accepted the inadmissibility of the claim of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of Section 54EC and also

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

89,885/- 1,19,10,115/- Less: Exemption u/s. 54EC 50,00,000/- Net Long Term Capital Gain 69,10,115/- 7. According to AO, it is evident from the revised computation filed during the course of hearing that the assessee has accepted the inadmissibility of the claim of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of Section 54EC and also

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-21, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.857/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukesh Kr. Agarwal Vs. P.C.I.T – 21, Kolkata 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 116/1, Girish Ghosh Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata – Liluah, Howrah-711204. 700014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapa 7519D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Respondent By :Md. Usman, Cit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 03.03.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Lncome Tax - 21, Kolkata Under Section 263 Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 27Th March, 2015 Passed By The Lncome Tax Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Is Without Jurisdiction, Against Law & Facts Of The Case & Therefore Illegal & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

section 143 (2) of the Act and the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) by making addition of Rs.4,89,890/-. The Assessing Officer observed from the return of income filed by the assessee, wherein the assessee has shown income under the head of salary, income from other sources, loss from house property

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

section 22 income from house property is liable to the taxed. The income that the club had made in the instant case was from letting out the rooms. The income was derived from providing many facilities to the members including accommodation. Neither the club nor the members had treated these facilities separately and the department could not also treat them

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

section 22 income from house property is liable to the taxed. The income that the club had made in the instant case was from letting out the rooms. The income was derived from providing many facilities to the members including accommodation. Neither the club nor the members had treated these facilities separately and the department could not also treat them

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

section 22 income from house property is liable to the taxed. The income that the club had made in the instant case was from letting out the rooms. The income was derived from providing many facilities to the members including accommodation. Neither the club nor the members had treated these facilities separately and the department could not also treat them

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

house property is to be made as per sections 23(b) & 23(c) which prescribe actual rent received or receivable' as the basis. The assessee’s explanation is therefore unacceptable. It can not therefore be denied that there has been concealment of particulars of income in respect of rent in the original return and penalty

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]

section 80-IB(10)(a) of the Act is "shall", but it would not necessarily mean that in every case, it shall be taken to be mandatory requirement instead would depend upon the intent of the Legislature and not the language in which the provision is clothed. The meaning and the intent of the Legislature would be gathered

M/S RKA REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 24 was separately claimed by the assessee. He accordingly estimated 40% of the total expenses of Rs.72,23,342/- claimed by the assessee under the various heads as related to income from house property and disallowance to the extent of Rs.28,89

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" was not examined. It was not examined as to what part of interest pertain to the part of the Panvel Project that was given on rent after being completed. In the written submission, it is stated that total interest paid for the year for Panvel Project was Rs. 3,89,51,332/- out of which Rs. 3,89

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

89,350/-. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT noted that the assessee had made excess claim of expenses of Rs.38,07,409/- and after considering the submission of the assessee, set aside the assessment order of the Ld. AO passed under section 143(3) of the Act as the assessment order was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests

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

89,045/- but claimed in the computation of income. The excess provision was added to the total income of assessee. 7. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. Being aggrieved by this, assessee has come up in appeal before us. 8. Before us Ld. AR for the assessee fairly conceded that

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

89,91,819/-. Case selected for scrutiny followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Various details called for by ld. AO were submitted. On going through the same ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 10,87,28,000/- on account of compensation paid to Mr. Kunal Saha

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

section 43(5) but it is to be taxed as profit on sale of right as income of the assessee. Thus Ground No. 6 to 8 are dismissed.” 2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has shown the rental income under the head house property and claimed standard deduction