DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

section 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.04.2018 narrated hereinbefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allow the 1st & 2nd grounds of appeal.” 11. Further, in assessee’s group case the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Sarang Property Developers Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 5620/Mum/2016 passed the following order; “4. We have considered

BIP DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

House Property". 4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have allowed pre-construction interest of Rs.27,92,431 being 1/5th of RS.1,39,62,155 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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEVA LEASE AND FINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Acit Circle-15(1), V/S. M/S Deva Lease & Aayaka Bhawan,Poorva Finance Pvt. Ltd., 1A, 110, Shantipally, Kolkta- K.B.R. Complex, 4, Ho- 107 Chi-Min Sarani, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcd 7839 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O. No.54/Kol/2017 (A/O Ita No.961/Kol/2017) Assessment Year :2012-13 M/S Deva Lease & V/S. Acit, Circle-15(1), Finance Pvt. Ltd., 1A, Aaykar Bhavan, Poorva, K.B.R. Complex, 4, Ho- 110, Shantipally, Chi-Min Sarani, Kolkata- Kolakta-107 71 [Pan No.Aabcd 7839 E] .. "तया"ेपक/Co-Objector ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 14A r.w. 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 by holding that the same is not attracted in case the assessee’s corresponding dividend income is subjected to Dividend Distribution Tax. The assessee on the other hand strongly supports the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. It seeks to repeat the fact that the impugned dividend income had been

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

SMT. NILANJANA CHAKRABORTI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

92,965/-. The assessee had made invested in REC Bonds of Rs.50,00,000/- within the period allowed in law and claimed exemption u/s 54EC of the Act. This issue is not in dispute. He submitted that the assessee has advanced, for the purchase of two residential flats Rs.20,00,000/- to M/s Exclusive Home Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.40

ANIL KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

92,826/-. However, the income generated by collection of rent should have been treated as House property income. As per section

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

house property. The revenue's appeal was dismissed by the ITAT, Chennai Bench and the order of the ld. CIT(A) was upheld. 3.7. From these judicial pronouncements, it is very much clear that if the property is purchased from borrowed funds then consideration for the purchased amount, the interest on borrowed fund also has to be paid. The amount

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sika India Pvt. Ltd………………………….……........................................................……………….…......Appellant Commercial Complex-Ii 620, Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata – 700 034 [Pan : Aaecs 1119 F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Kolkata……..................……….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

92(3) is that if transacted value income from an international is that if transacted value income from an international transaction is more than its arm's length price income, then, the ALP income should transaction is more than its arm's length price income, then, the ALP income should transaction is more than its arm's length price income

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

SHELTER PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (A)-XII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

92,73,606/- made by the AO as income of assessee representing consideration said to have been received by the assessee under development agreement. 3. Heard both and perused the evidence on record. The AO by placing reliance on the letter dt: 23-12-2011 filed by the assessee in the assessment proceedings, the AO held that possession of land

ITO, WARD - 13(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASHAMANGAL PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Ashamangal Portfolio Ward-13(1), 9Th Pvt. Ltd., 103/24/1, Floor, 110, Foreshore Road, Shibpur, Shantiplly, Aayakar Howrh-711102 Bhawan (Poorva), [Pan No.Aabca 3340 B] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Shri K. Mondal, Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri R. Jain, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-10-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 18.10.2017, Passed In Case No.44/Cit(A)-5/Dcit.Cir-13(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive The Assessing Officer’S Action Treating The Taxpayer’S Income Of ₹239,98,414/- From Its Warehousing Facilities Under The Head House Property Income Than From Business In Lower Appellate Proceedings. We Notice At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Under Challenge Reads As Under:-

92,920/- Total : Rs.2,39,98,414/- 3.2. The AIR of the appellant in his submission had highlighted the following points:- 1. It is submitted that income from warehousing charges, maintenance charges etc. received by the appellant has been accepted by the Hon'ble income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "Business Income" in appellant's own case in order dated 04/04/2008

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)

house property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar supra had placed heavy reliance on the finding of aforesaid facts recorded by the tribunal. Whereas in the instant case before us, the ld CITA had categorically stated that the assessee had carried on an organized activity with a view to commercially exploit the civic infrastructure

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANUKA VENTURES PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1413/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 7883 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,98,822/- as the rental income earned by the assessee is to be taxed only as income from house property and not as business income. The ld AO however granted flat deduction of 30% of the rental income while computing the income from house property. 3 M/s Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 5. The assessee submitted that

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

house property for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. In the present case, the assessee had sold 4 depreciable assets/f1ats during the year belonging to the same Block of Assets - Building. The opening WDV of the said Block was Rs.1,33,21,798/-. The sale consideration received from these 4 properties was more than the Opening

JANAMANGAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,HALDIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janamangal Samabay Krishi Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(1), Unnayan Samity Limited Vs Haldia Dharmadasbar, Contai Purba Medinipur - 721401 [Pan : Aabaj2517P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Deduction U/S 80P For Whole Of The Profit Of Rs. 65,16,054/ For Business Of Banking/Providing Credit Facility Was Not Allowed As Per Order U/S 250 By The Ld. Cit Appeal Nfac, Of Appellant Assessee Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited A Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act Engage In The Business Of Supporting Agricultural Development. As Per Order U/S 250 A Proportion Of This Profit Was Allowed U/S 80P Of Rs. 22,65,866/ By Disallowing The Balance Amount Of Rs. 42,50,188/ Without Allowing The Deduction U/S Sop. The Basis Of Proportion For Allowance & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Clear To The Assessee. According To The Assessee Cost & Profit Allocation Should Be Based On Allocation Of Fund To Deposit Investment & Loan Disbursement. Therefore Assessee Is Completely Disagreed With The Opinion & Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal U/S 250 & Preferred For Appeal To Tribunal.”

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Considering the same, Rs.2,20,000/- has to be assessed under the head income from house property and after allowing the standard deduction of Rs.66,000/-, the remaining amount of Rs.1,54,000/- has to be taxed as income from house property. 6.1.1. Now, coming to the operational activities of the society

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STABLE TRADING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Itat House Property Rs.4,53,600/- Loss From Business Rs.(-) 20,58,153 Add: 14A Disallowance Rs.36,41`,968/- Rs.15,83,815/- Short Term Capital Gain 9,37,49,029/- Total Income Rs.9,57,86,444/- Tax On Above On Rs. 20,37,415/- @33.99% Rs.6,92,517/- On Rs.9,37,49,029/- Rs.1,59,32,647/- Total Tax Rs.1,66,25,164/- Income As Computed After Cit(A) Effect Of Section 14A. House Property Rs.4,53,600/- Loss From Business (-)Rs.20,58,153/- Short Term Capital Gain Rs.9,37,49,029/- Total Income 9,21,44,476/- 1

92,517/- On Rs.9,37,49,029/- Rs.1,59,32,647/- Total Tax Rs.1,66,25,164/- Income as computed after CIT(A) effect of section 14A. House property

SRI PRANAB CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T , CIR - 30 ,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 217/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sri Pranab Chatterjee -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-30, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acqpc 3756 K] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

92,766/- ---------------- Rs 1,62,766/- The ld AO for want of addresses added back the sundry creditors to total income of the assessee. Before the ld CITA, the assessee pleaded that the ld AO purportedly should have only invoked the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act on the ground of remission or cessation of trading liability