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”. Therefore, AO has examined the issue relating to income from commercial go- down and then took a possible view, hence order passed by AO u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 is not erroneous. Apart from this, the ld. Counsel also pointed out that in assessee`s case a search and seizure operation was conducted under section

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

undisclosed income of other assessees was ploughed back in the guise of share capital. According to AO in order to verify the genuineness of the assessee's share transactions; notices u/s 131 of the Act were issued but save & except two cases the remaining three notices were returned unserved. Even with regard to two notices served there was no compliance

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]

income from house property' and should have allowed only standard deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act amounting to 30% of Gross Annual Value. Failure to do so has rendered the assessment erroneous and failure to bring the apparent undisclosed

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA MUMBAI TRUCK TERMINAL LTD, HOWRAH

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

undisclosed sources. We find that the assessee had filed the following details before the Learned AO which is not disputed by the Learned DR:- 1. Details of cost of construction 2. Details of sales 3. Details of purchases made which were debited to work in progress as well those which were directly debited to profit and loss account

ITO WARD-41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAMAL BANERJEE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

income from house property, since the assessee is residing in a part of the building and let out the remaining to others on rental basis. He further assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned CIT committed error in holding that the total turnover was accumulated through a periodic cycling of the sales amount to purchases for four

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property’ and ‘other sources’. The Assessing Officer records at para 4 & 5 of his order as follows:- “4. ............They produced relevant evidences in support of the return of income which were seen and placed on record. 5. It is seen from the computation of total income filed along with the return of income that the assessee during the year

SHRI PANKAJ JALAN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1923/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pankaj Jalan -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Actpj 8249 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and income from other sources. In the penalty order, the ld AO notes that during the course of post search operation, the assessee admitted an undisclosed

NIRAJ JALAN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1925/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Niraj Jalan -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Acxpj 5139 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and income from other sources. In the penalty order, the ld AO notes that during the course of post search operation, the assessee admitted an undisclosed

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]

income of Rs. 10 lakhs which was stated to have been invested in house property. Therefore, the appellant was directed by the AO to verify the valuation report of his house property located at Atghara, Rajarhat Road (Check Post), P.S. Rajarhat, near Tata Motor Workshop, Kolkata – 700 136. The assessee complied with the aforesaid direction

UDAY SHANKAR MAHAWAR,KOLKATA vs. A.CI.T.,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 3. Briefly stated facts as observed by the AO are that the assessee filed his e-return of income on 29.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,49,11,110/-. A survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act dated 22.08.2014 was conducted by the Investigation

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

undisclosed income, over-looking the fact that the source of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee. That being so, in keeping with ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali’ (supra), the reasons recorded to initiate assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto, culminating in the impugned order, are cancelled. Ground No.2

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

undisclosed income, over-looking the fact that the source of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee. That being so, in keeping with ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali’ (supra), the reasons recorded to initiate assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto, culminating in the impugned order, are cancelled. Ground No.2

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

undisclosed income, over-looking the fact that the source of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee. That being so, in keeping with ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali’ (supra), the reasons recorded to initiate assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto, culminating in the impugned order, are cancelled. Ground No.2

ACIT, CEN. CIR-VI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. USHA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

undisclosed income of Rs. 7 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. These reasons had been considered by the CIT(A) as well as by the ITAT and therefore, their findings about the taxable income of the assessee has been given in the facts of the case. (iii) Kailashben Manoharlal Chokshi vs CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj) “Held, that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections by the assessee are allowed

undisclosed income as “any income based on entry in books of accounts wholly or partly false and would not have been found to be so, had the search not been conducted”. This clearly implies that any entry even recorded in the books, which is found to be wholly or partly false along with having a bearing on determination of income

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)

property and shares and accordingly, claim of deduction u/s.54 and 54F has been justified. Kusumlata Sonthalia Assessment Year:2010-11 5.4 Considering the above facts as available in assessment record, I find that the contention of the Ld. AR that the issue of eligibility u/s.54 /54F was examined by the AO is only with respect to examination of "date

RAJESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 10/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Rajesh Agarwal [Pan: Adhpa 3042 O] (Appellant) (Respondent)

undisclosed business income and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 10.1. We find that the facts as noted in ld CITA order is that the assessee had taken on rent one house property

ITO, WD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAJESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 10/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Rajesh Agarwal [Pan: Adhpa 3042 O] (Appellant) (Respondent)

undisclosed business income and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 10.1. We find that the facts as noted in ld CITA order is that the assessee had taken on rent one house property

ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAKESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2008/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

properties my client has repayment the amount to vendor as taken a loan from local party on interest basis. During the year the major allowable expenses has claimed as interest paid on loan." The AO noted that the submission of the assessee was found to be devoid of facts and not tenable and he made addition of Rs.7