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

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

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]

losses against house property income. I find that there is no dispute about her co-ownership, and the AO has raised the issue of non disclosure of rent/deemed rent in the hands of other co-owner of the property. Such non- disclosure by the other co-owner, if any, in my considered view does not adversely affect the position

DECORUM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) - 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

loss\nat Rs.2,90,287/-. The ld. PCIT by exercising his revision jurisdiction u/s\n263 has found following discrepancies:\n(i) issue related to rental income,\n(ii) issue related to sinking fund,\n(iii) issue related to unsecured loan.\n2.1 The ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act has found that it is a case of\nerroneous assessment

AMITABH JALAN FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

setting off of the business losses of Rs.(-)3,642/- has been carried forward. However, in the return, assessee has computed business loss of Rs.(-)3,34,510/- after I.T.A. No. 596/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Amitabh Jalan Family Trust 2 claiming house property

PARVESH SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1388/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Parvesh Sharma,……………………………...……Appellant 106, B.T. Road, Rajbari, Bonhooghly, Kolkata-700108, West Bengal [Pan:Bmpps3173Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, W.B.

loss claimed under the head income from House Property’. Notice under section 143(2) dated 28.09.2019 was issued to the assessee through ITBA Portal, electronically. Further notices under section 142(1) were issued on 12.12.2019 and 18.03.2020 to the assessee through ITBA electronically. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from capital gain and income from other

RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

House, J.L. Nehru Aayakar Bhawan, 7th Floor, Vs Road, Kolkata - 700071 P-7, Chowringhee Square, (PAN: AABCR3494H) Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Bikash Chanda, CA Respondent by : Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed

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

set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to treat the lease rental charges as income from house property and accordingly, allow the deduction u/s 24(1) of the Act. The ground no. 1 to 4 are allowed. 3. The second issue raised in ground no.5 is not pressed and hereby dismissed. 4. The issue

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

loss on sale of property. Accordingly, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued, served and duly responded by the assessee. The ld. AO on perusal of the details and documents filed by the assessee observed that assessee has transferred property during the year which was purchased in F.Y. 2005-06 for ₹1,65,68,750/- the index cost

NALINI KEJRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.672/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Nalini Kejriwal……..……….….…………............…...……………....Appellant 7, Lyons Range, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Ajopk0890K] Vs. Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.05.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1A) That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,01,98,784/- Being Profit Earned From Sale Of Shares Of M/S. Gcm Securities Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Act Without Considering The Explanation With Supporting Evidences Filed By The Appellant In A Proper Perspective. B) That, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Further Erred In Not Considering That Despite Details Provided & The Fact That No Long Term Capital Gain Was Claimed In Respect Of The Impugned Transaction Of Sale Of Shares Of M/S.

House at New Delhi. The assessee is also the promoter and developer of Heritage City at Gurgaon, in respect of which the profit has been shown under the head "business or profession". During the year 1990-91, the asessee company entered into an agreement with M/s. Gulmohar Estate Ltd for the purchase of three properties at Garden Estate, I.T.A. No.672/Kol/2023

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

setting aside the order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 26.09.2022 by validly exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act without the pre-requisite twin conditions being satisfied. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is deriving income by way of director’s remuneration, interest and salary from partnership firm, capital gain, house property and Sushil

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

setting aside the order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 26.09.2022 by validly exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act without the pre-requisite twin conditions being satisfied. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is deriving income by way of director’s remuneration, interest and salary from partnership firm, capital gain, house property and Sushil

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

setting aside the order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 26.09.2022 by validly exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act without the pre-requisite twin conditions being satisfied. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is deriving income by way of director’s remuneration, interest and salary from partnership firm, capital gain, house property and Sushil

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

setting aside the order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 26.09.2022 by validly exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act without the pre-requisite twin conditions being satisfied. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is deriving income by way of director’s remuneration, interest and salary from partnership firm, capital gain, house property and Sushil

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.”

loss account. Apart from this, Society kept some funds and the society must incur the expenditure in the, form of interest paid to the members (the funds unutilized as well as interest expenditure incurred against such funds are not ascertainable from the records). This amount would be very substantial. So, the same is determined through indirect method of reverse working

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

house property which was carried forward has also been denied. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of not granting tax credit in respect of taxes withheld on the foreign income earned by the assessee and credit claimed in accordance with section

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

set off of loss is allowed as per the provisions of Chapter VI, which relates to computation of loss under various heads e.g. house property

KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

House” 14, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700019 Telephone: 2287-3067/8737/1816 Fax No.: (033) 2287-2577/7089 KPLC/IT/2018-19 August 24, 2023 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-l Coimbatore Dear Sir, PAN: AABCK3342D ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DIN: ITBA/APL/F/APL 1/2023-24/1055203146(1), DATED 17/08/2023 2 Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. APPEAL NO, CIT(A), Kolkata-4/10179/2019-20 This has reference