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

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

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

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

SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

89,224 is not rental. No Interest payment Certificate as asked in Notice under section 142(1) dated 08/02/2022 has been submitted also, So the claim of Rs. 1,96,19,238 is restricted to Rs. 94,44,635 and Rs 1,01,74,603 is disallowed for House Property

SIDDHARTH PAHWA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-33(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 54F of the Act with Standard Charted Bank, hence, the allegation made against your appellant do not hold good. 9. That your appellant further submits that out of the LTCG earned, investment made for the purchase of a new House Property (Flat) on 17.08.2016 jointly with his father and two others in equal shares, wherein your appellant's share

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

89,30,14,529/- towards interest received and receivable out of which an amount of Rs. 3,84,60,422/- had been earned from interest on deposits with banks and Rs. 11,35,000/- was earned by way of dividends received from different cooperative societies. Out of the bank interest, an amount of Rs. 1,01,57,488/- was earned

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

89,11,086/- as per computation of income submitted, out of which a sum of ₹88,98,508/- was reported to have been against the sale of land. On examination of Schedule 6 of the Audited Balance Sheet as submitted, it was found that there was deduction of gross block of ₹4,95,31,979/- towards and being part

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

89,11,086/- as per computation of income submitted, out of which a sum of ₹88,98,508/- was reported to have been against the sale of land. On examination of Schedule 6 of the Audited Balance Sheet as submitted, it was found that there was deduction of gross block of ₹4,95,31,979/- towards and being part

RAJ KUMAR GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

89,61,886/-. The assessee had capital of ₹38.36 Crore as at the end of the year according to the assessee, he had a sum of ₹31.05 Crore available for lending out of own capital fund as interest- free loan as per the following table: Particulars Amount (in ₹) Amount (in ₹) Capital 38.36 Taken 67.10 Total: 105.46 Given (-) 62.62 Available

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

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

house property, (D).-Profits\nand gains of business or profession, (E).-Capital gains, (F).-Income\nfrom other sources.'\nAs per section 56 of the Act, 'Income' would be 'Income from other\nsources' as per the provision of Section 56, which reads as follows.\n'Section 56. Income from other sources\n'Income of every kind which

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

89 ITR 266 (SC). There is, therefore, no principle by which the stock-in-trade can be valued at market price so as to bring to tax the notional profits which might in future be realised as a result of the sale of the stock-in-trade. In the present case, if the valuation of closing stock is changed from

M/S. BHUMI NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

89,61,518/- from sale of investment in the shares of one Cressanda Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 1166/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Bhumi Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Solutions Ltd., which is admittedly a company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. It has been further mentioned that the ld. AO disallowed a further amount

I.T.O.(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE SARDARSHAHR GAUSHALA SAMITY, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

89,87,471/- as deduction. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that section 11 of the Act is a separate code itself under Chapter III and no deduction under Chapter IV is allowable which covers 57(iv) of the Act also. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal on the ground that the claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

89,40,836/- in the current year, relevant to the A.Y. 2013-14. Therefore, the AO calculated the amount of expenditure non-allowable u/s 14A Read with Rule 8D of Rs. 2,42,335/- and made the addition to the total income. The appellant in his submission has stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT

ACIT, CIRCLE - 11(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

section 40A of the Act and held that it is a business decision of the assessee which cannot be interfered. Ld. CIT(A) noted that AO cannot step into the shoes of a businessman and thus, deleted the disallowance so made amounting to Rs.92,62,860/-. We note that there is no dispute on the payment of interest. The issue

HARSHVARDHAN SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-29,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

house property income, capital gains, interest, dividend etc. 3.1. Assessment was completed by making an addition of Rs.1,19,76,350/- on account of difference in actual cost of flat purchased by the assessee in the year 2011 and the value adopted in the year 2015 for the purpose of stamp duty by invoking the provisions of section