RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

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

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.”

96,054/-, however, the ld. CIT(A) re-worked out the calculation and confined the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act at 5 I.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited Rs.22,65,866/- as against Rs.65,16,054/- made by the Assessing Officer. 6.1. Assessee has filed a computation sheet

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

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

S.K.DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 S. K. Development Private Deputycommissioner Of Limited. Income-Tax,Circle- 5(1), Vs. 23A, N. S. Road, 10Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aadcs7398K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property income. 3 S.K. Development Private Limited AY: 2013-14 For the other component of Rs.3,65,700/-, Ld. Counsel referred to the details of its dealings in immovable properties during the year for which brokerage expenses were incurred. The details are tabulated as under: Brokerage charges against sale of space 01­Apr­2012 to 31­Mar­2013

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property belonged to Amarjit\nSing and 25% to Manjit Singh and 25% of the assessee i.e. Kajari\nBanerjee.\n06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available\non record, we find that the agreement for the purchase of the said\nproperty was made on 28.12.2012, when the assessee paid by cheque\nof ₹10 lacs and the remaining consideration

EMERALD COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

96,700/-. Thereafter, u/s 143(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') assessed total income at Rs. 3,19,78,280/- by making an addition of Rs. 46,83,643/- by I.T.A. No.: 252/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Emerald Company Pvt. Ltd. invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

properties at a values which were lower than the stamp duty value, the ld. Assessing Officer did not dispute the same after exercising his discretion under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The ld. A.R. also drew our attention to the fact that Notes to Clause 29B of the Tax Audit Report, copy of which is placed at pages

BENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Bengalshrachi Acit, Cir-5(1), Kolkata Housingdevelopment Aaykar Bhawan V/S. Ltd. P-7 Chowringhee Square, 686 Shrachi Tower, Kolkata-700 069. Anandapur,E.M Bypass, Kolkata-700 107. Pan: Aabcb2808F अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

96[Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] 6. AY 2017-18 Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Ltd. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year

SHREE GOVIND PROPERTY & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

House property amounting to ₹2,16,03,609/- and Income from other sources of ₹42,94,079/- being gross interest received and had also incurred current year’s loss amounting to ₹96,08,371/- under the head Profits and gains of business or profession. The set-off of business loss had been accepted and the assessment order

JASPAL SINGH BINDRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed and the Ld

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

house property and profit in share. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 139(1) on 31.10.2022 declaring total income of ₹6,76,96,410/-. The assessee is an Individual and a Resident of India and regularly assessed to tax. During the year under consideration, he earned Pension from Standard Chartered Pension (SCD) Overseas, UK of Rs.1

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

96 taxmann.com 403 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 v. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. High Court deleted said addition holding that assessee had discharged its onus of establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of both investors as well as lenders SLP against said order was to be dismissed - Held, yes Jurisdictional HC in case

MURARILAL MURARKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 44AB of the Act. The assessee had e- filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 6,80,980/- comprising of income from salary, house property and business or profession. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS, the reasons being large commission expenses