COMANTRA E-SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.(CPC), TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts as well as before

COMANTRA E-SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.(CPC), TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts as well as before

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

TDS on payments made to National Neuroscience Centre. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 04-03-2014 enhanced the disallowance to Rs. 1,70,28,307/-, thus an additional sum of Rs.44,44,625/- (Rs.1

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

TDS on payments made to National Neuroscience Centre. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 04-03-2014 enhanced the disallowance to Rs. 1,70,28,307/-, thus an additional sum of Rs.44,44,625/- (Rs.1

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

249 (Guj) 8. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal it clearly appears that whether the said transactions were bogus or not was a question of fact. The Tribunal has also pointed out that nothing is shown to indicate that any part of the fund given by the assessee to these parties came back to the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

249 (Guj) 8. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal it clearly appears that whether the said transactions were bogus or not was a question of fact. The Tribunal has also pointed out that nothing is shown to indicate that any part of the fund given by the assessee to these parties came back to the assessee

GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 618/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Graphite India Limited,.........................Appellant 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700016 [Pan: Aaacc0457C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

TDS Aaykar Bhawan, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (UP) ['Ld. AO'] for Assessment Year 2020-21on 28-10-2019. 2.0 In terms of the provisions of Section 249(2) of the Act, an appeal before Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] against the intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act needs to be filed within thirty days from the date

OCEAN MARINE ENVIRONMENT COATINGS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS, WARD - 2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

3) of section 249 provides for condonation of delay if the Ld. CIT(A) is satisfied with the sufficient cause explained by the assessee in respect of the delay. The description available with Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay on the basis of sufficient cause has to be dealt with reference to sec. 5 of the Limitation

OCEAN MARINE ENVIRONMENT COATINGS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS, WARD - 2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

3) of section 249 provides for condonation of delay if the Ld. CIT(A) is satisfied with the sufficient cause explained by the assessee in respect of the delay. The description available with Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay on the basis of sufficient cause has to be dealt with reference to sec. 5 of the Limitation

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

249(3) read with section 250. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016. In this Circular, the CBDT has provided that mandatory filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) electronically would be made applicable from 15.06.2016. In other words, prior to 15.06.2016 if any appeal has been filed

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

249(3) read with section 250. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016. In this Circular, the CBDT has provided that mandatory filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) electronically would be made applicable from 15.06.2016. In other words, prior to 15.06.2016 if any appeal has been filed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

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

249 (Bangalore ­ Trib.) and the M/s.Epcos Ferrites Ltd (Since merged with M/s. Epcos India P.Ltd) decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of DCIT vs. Rolls Royce Marine India (P.) Ltd reported in [2016] 70 taxmann.com 245 (Mumbai ­ Trib.). Based on the above precedents,we are of the considered view that under the TNMM, the focus should

SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

TDS credit of INR 1,56,249.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a listed company engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing and sale of storage devices namely audio cassettes, CDs etc. and also in production of films/TV serials. Assessee filed its original return of income on 28.11.2014 which was revised on 22.03.2016 reporting

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. MARKETING DIVISION (EASTERN REGION),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 58 (TDS)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

3,82,79,751.00 and assessee failed to file any evidence for the payment of the tax. iv) It was noted that loading infrastructure facilities was 100% owned and operated by BRPL. Therefore it was under the control of BRPL. While using the infrastructure facilities for loading of petroleum products for the assessee, it was operated by BRPL. The payment

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

249]. In the said case, the assessee (engaged in the . In the said case, the assessee (engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing t business of manufacturing and marketing two wheelers) entered into a non wo wheelers) entered into a non-compete agreement with a third party which restrained the said third party from carrying out agreement with

BINOD MOKTAN,KALIMPONG vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), KALIMPONG

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.353/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Binod Moktan……...……………………..…………………....Appellant Upper Pedong, P.O Pedong, Kalimpong District, W.B. 734311. [Pan: Aripm6300Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Kalimpong……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Received Contractual Receipts Of Rs.51,04,000 From M/S. Gajmer Works During The A.Y. 2018-19 & Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Amounting To Rs.54,040/- Was Also Made On The Said Receipts. However, The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Said Assessment Year. Subsequently, Proceedings Were Initiated Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed A Return Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,92,770/-. However, The Assessing Officer Completed The

TDS) amounting to Rs.54,040/- was also made on the said receipts. However, the assessee did not file its return of income for the said assessment year. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a notice under Section 148 was issued. In response, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs.4

DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

249 /CIT(A)-VI/Cir- 5/2009-10/Kol dated 21.2.2012 against the order passed by the Learned AO u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos.930,931 & 782/Kol/2012- 1 A-AM M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd 2. As the issues involved are identical in nature, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake

ALLAHABAD BANK, NAKTALA BRANCH,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, TDS RG.57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1384/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Allahabad Bank, Vs. Jcit(Tds), Range-57, 10B, Middleton Row, 8Th Floor, Naktala Branch, 364/23A, Nsc Bose Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700040 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cala 06329 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tapas Dutta, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.138/Cit(A)-Xvi/Jcit,R-57/13-14/Kol, Dated 28.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Jt.Commissoner Of Income Tax-Tds (Ao),U/S.272A(2)(K)/274 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Quarterly Tds Returns Late Therefore The Assessing Officer (Tds) Imposed Penalty On The Assessee U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Act At Rs.50,336/- 3. The Captioned Appeal Is Time Barred By 32 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Said Appeal. The Assessee Explained The Reasons For Delay Stating That Assessee Is A Schedule Bank

TDS) imposed penalty on the assessee U/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act at Rs.50,336/- 3. The captioned appeal is time barred by 32 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. The assessee explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee is a schedule bank 2 Allahabad Bank and need to take