SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and provisions of Section\n54F were/are applicable to all other assets, not being a residential house. In J.R.\nSubramanya Bhat (supra), Karnataka High Court noticed language of Section 54 which\nstipulated that the assessee should within one year from the date of transfer purchase, or\nwithin a period of two years thereafter, construct a residential house to avail

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 ]

House Property' only on fulfilling the following conditions: a) Income should be derived from a property consisting of any building or lands appurtenant thereto b) The assessee is the owner of the said property c) The property should not be used for the purpose of business or profession carried on by him, the profits of which are chargeable to income

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]

90,000/- 8,40,000/- Add: Index cost Rs.8,40,000x(582/389) 12,56,760/- Add: Index cost of Improvement (FY 2004-05) Rs.14,50,000x(582/480) 17,58,125/- 30,14,885/- Add: Registration expenses (for Gift deed/Brokerage) 75,000/- 30,89,885/- 1,19,10,115/- Less: Exemption u/s. 54EC 50,00,000/- Net Long Term Capital Gain

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]

90,000/- 8,40,000/- Add: Index cost Rs.8,40,000x(582/389) 12,56,760/- Add: Index cost of Improvement (FY 2004-05) Rs.14,50,000x(582/480) 17,58,125/- 30,14,885/- Add: Registration expenses (for Gift deed/Brokerage) 75,000/- 30,89,885/- 1,19,10,115/- Less: Exemption u/s. 54EC 50,00,000/- Net Long Term Capital Gain

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

house property’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secunderabad Club confirmed the order of the Bankipur Club Ltd. It further held that in that judgment the issue of earning interest on Fixed Deposits from Banks was not decided. It held that in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) the Supreme Court adjudicated the question as to whether

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

house property’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secunderabad Club confirmed the order of the Bankipur Club Ltd. It further held that in that judgment the issue of earning interest on Fixed Deposits from Banks was not decided. It held that in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) the Supreme Court adjudicated the question as to whether

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

house property’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secunderabad Club confirmed the order of the Bankipur Club Ltd. It further held that in that judgment the issue of earning interest on Fixed Deposits from Banks was not decided. It held that in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) the Supreme Court adjudicated the question as to whether

SANJEEB KUMAR SINGH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

90,290/-. So the difference comes down to Rs. 11,701/- (Rs. 76,31,551 - Rs. 76,19,850/-). So only the assessee has to explain Rs. 11,701/- for that we note that the cost of sand etc being transported for a subsidized cost because assessee is in the business of transportation. So this amount

SMT. PRIYANKA GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(IT)-CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

house building rent interest in her account though the income from property is with 50% share and assessee is the co-owner of the property. The Ld. AO assessed and disallowed 50% of the HBL interest amount to Rs. 11,77,507/- and 50% was disallowed which amount to Rs. 5,88,753/-. The assessee further claimed the standard deduction

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

90,371/- on account of commission/professional consultancy income.” 2 Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AY 2011-12 3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the materials available on record. We note that all the present issues in this appeal are squarely covered by the Tribunal order in ITA Nos.334 to 337/Kol/2023 dated 05.02.2024 in assessee’s own case, wherein

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" without making any requisite examination about the business being carried out by M/s JKS Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd which was mentioned in the form 3CD as 'Construction' and 'Development'. In view of the above error committed by the A.O due to not making requisite investigation and enquiries in respect of M/s JKS Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd's business and also

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)

house is not of "Construction" but of "purchase" to justify her claim for deduction u/s.54 and 54F. The AO should then, after examining the entire facts of the case and taking into consideration the explanation of the assessee, determine whether the assessee acquired the new flat by way of "Construction" or by way of "purchase" after taking into account

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

section 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On perusal of 2 Bani Broto Banerjee the record, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee was holding 99% share of Rainey Park Limited. The Guest House/Hotel was being run by the assessee and ultimately on account of losses faced by him, he has sold the property

ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAGHU NANDAN MODI, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

90,500/-. The AO in the assessment order has observed the business of the assessee as interest income. The assessee was also inter alia a part-time Director of M/s Prabhukripa Overseas Ltd. (POL for short). It was observed that POL is owner of a flat having 3551.12 sq. ft. area located at 11/12 Buckley Court, Nathalal Parekh Marg, next

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

section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house no. 32. Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah on 7th January 1910. The name of Bengal Flour mill was subsequently changed to BEM Industries Ltd. (Please see Development agreement dated 1st January 2007 at page

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

section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house no. 32. Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah on 7th January 1910. The name of Bengal Flour mill was subsequently changed to BEM Industries Ltd. (Please see Development agreement dated 1st January 2007 at page

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

90,01,363/- was suo motu offered by the assessee under section 14A and the same being more than the exempt dividend income of Rs.10,88,37,814/- received by the assessee during the year under consideration, a further disallowance made by the Assessing Officer which exceeded even the exempt dividend income is not sustainable. Since this contention raised

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

90,114/-. However, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F by\nstating that he has invested an amount of Rs. 64 lakhs towards purchase of land and\nconstruction of house property by virtue of agreement entered into with M/s Dhatri\nConstruction Pvt. Ltd. on 19/03/2008. Perusal of the agreement of sale dated\n19/03/2008 between the assessee and M/s Dhatri Constructions