INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

properties constructed by the assessee are its 'business asset' reflected by way of 'Fixed 13 Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. AY 2017-18 Asset'. Undisputedly, the income derived from leasing these fixed assets on short term basis has all along been taxed as 'Business Income'. Under the scheme of the Act, the income from grant of ‘long term capital leases’ results

AASHIRVAD VILLA LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 1372/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aashirvad Villa Limited,.........................Appellant 21A, Belvedere Road, Kolkata-700027 [Pan: Aaecs6659N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-4(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2024

House Rs.87,143/- Property(A) Business Loss (B) Rs.6,578/- Total Current Year Rs.93,721/- Losses (A plus B) Long-term Capital Gain Rs.2,83,950/- Less: Loss as Rs.93,721/- mentioned above set

FALCON VINCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PR.CIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Falcon Vincon Private Limited Vs. Pr. Cit-3, Kolkata 102, Tower No.12, Shriram Sameeksha, New Gangamma Gudi Police Station Road, Naidu Layout, Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf3203C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue “unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law”. 10. Taking note of the aforesaid dictum

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

house property' is a loss, in respect of the assessment years commencing on 1st day of April, 1995 and the 1st day of April, 1996, such loss shall be first set

E M C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

loss of Rs.39,31,532/-. This has been reduced by the ld. Assessing Officer to Rs.16,59,079/-. In other words, the ld. Assessing Officer did not disturb the claim of house property income made by the assessee in the return. 4. The ld. CIT perused the assessment record and formed an opinion that alleged house property income ought

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

losses arising from rental receipts assessed under the head "Income from House Property" in earlier years is to be set

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

loss. The AO’s allegation is in this regard was therefore wrong as well. In view of the above discussions and findings and in totality of the facts & circumstances of the case, I hold that the AO had erred in assessing the bank interest under the head “other sources” instead of “Business Income”. In my considered view, the bank interest

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

loss. The AO’s allegation is in this regard was therefore wrong as well. In view of the above discussions and findings and in totality of the facts & circumstances of the case, I hold that the AO had erred in assessing the bank interest under the head “other sources” instead of “Business Income”. In my considered view, the bank interest

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

loss. The AO’s allegation is in this regard was therefore wrong as well. In view of the above discussions and findings and in totality of the facts & circumstances of the case, I hold that the AO had erred in assessing the bank interest under the head “other sources” instead of “Business Income”. In my considered view, the bank interest

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

property or assets of the demerged company or any undertaking thereof by the resulting company; vi) The transfer of the undertaking is on a going concern basis. 29. Once demerger is sanctioned by the Hon’ble High court the enabling provision is section 72A of the Act, which allows carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation

ARMASOL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-12(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

loss account which do not relate to the house property income and accordingly Page 2 of 4 I.T.A. No.: 772/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Armasol Properties Pvt. Ltd. the AO held that the assessee is not entitled to claim the set

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property 2 Loss under the head business and profession 3 Income under the head other source The assessee in its computation of income claimed the loss of ₹31,41,251/- under the head “business and profession” which was set

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property 2 Loss under the head business and profession 3 Income under the head other source The assessee in its computation of income claimed the loss of ₹31,41,251/- under the head “business and profession” which was set

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property 2 Loss under the head business and profession 3 Income under the head other source The assessee in its computation of income claimed the loss of ₹31,41,251/- under the head “business and profession” which was set

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property 2 Loss under the head business and profession 3 Income under the head other source The assessee in its computation of income claimed the loss of ₹31,41,251/- under the head “business and profession” which was set

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.

setting aside the order dated 27th March, 2015 passed under section 143(3) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act arbitrarily alleging that the lncome Tax Officer allowed relief without making inquiries and verification which should have been made by him. 4.That, on the facts and in the circumstances

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GUINESS SECURITES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1712/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

loss was first computed. Explanation : Where any part of the business of a company other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads "Interest on securities", "Income from house property", "Capital gains" and "Income from other sources", or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking

PIYUSH MOHAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

loss from self occupied 3 Piyush Mohan Agarwal, AY 2016-17 house property and further at the time of computing LTCG as claiming the same Interest as direct expenses related to transfer of capital asset. The assessee has failed to completely disclose its true and correct income by non-furnishing of details as required under provisions