TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

b) The CIT(A) has treated this contention of non-applicability of 50C on building as an additional ground and observed that since gain on sale of building is offered as capital gain, the provision of Section 50C would be applicable. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the action of the AO of not referring the matter

NAMOKAR BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM Appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-20 dated 23.11.2022 for AY 2013-14. 2. The common issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the assessment order passed

SRI SNEHASISH BHAUMIK,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

B” BENCH, KOLKATA\n\nBEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM\n\nITA No.303/KOL/2024\n(Assessment Year:2014-15)\n\nSri Snehasish Bhaumik\nA-3/2, Labony Estate, Salt Lake,\nKolkata, West Bengal, 700064\nVs.\nPCIT-17\nUttarapan Complex, Maniktala\nCivic Centre, Block-DFS-4,\nKolkata, West Bengal, 700054\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. ADYPB8516H

NALANDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: 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. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [PAN : AABCN7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue by : Shri

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

4 Sanjay Kumar Singh, AY: 2020-21. to his tax practitioners but the said practitioners could not do any significant help in the absence of any documents. Therefore in the absence of obtaining any proper information from the assessee and without understanding the actual condition during the period of pandemic the AO has just relied on the information received through

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 08.09.2020 has deleted the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order

SATYANARAYAN HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.444/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

ADONIS MARKETING (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

B, Clive Row, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001. (PAN: AAHCA1673P) Vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata ......... Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Respondent represented by : Shri Rajat Mitra, CIT, DR Date of concluding the hearing : 06.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 06.02.2025 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

249 of the Act, which provides power to the ld. 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

KANOI TEA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

249 of the Act, which provides power to the ld. 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

DEV DARSHAN DESIGNS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.34/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dev Darshan Designs Pvt. Ltd.……….......................…...……………....Appellant P-40, 1St Floor, Kajinajrul Islam Avenue, Kolkata-700157. [Pan: Aadcd1890P] Vs. Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata….……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 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 07.11.2023 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 Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.2,67,60,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Protective Basis In Respect Of The Loan Amount Received By The Assessee From One Of Its Director & His Relatives. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total

B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.34/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dev Darshan Designs Pvt. Ltd.……….......................…...……………....Appellant P-40, 1st Floor, Kajinajrul Islam Avenue, Kolkata-700157. [PAN: AADCD1890P] vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Kolkata….……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent Appearances

BABA IRON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme

GAJGAMINI TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 2144/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Gajgamini Trexim Pvt. Limited,................Appellant 63/2B, Begachia Ultadanga, North 24-Parganas, Kolkata-700037 [PAN: AAECG5510A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: N o n e, appeared

SHRI VANILA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 230/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri Vanila Vinimay Pvt. Limited,............Appellant C/O. S.L. Poddar & Company, E-3A, Kanti Chandra Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016 [Pan: Aaccv4577A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,................................Respondent Ward-1(3), Kolkata Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 07, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata Dated 10.01.2018 Passed For Assessment Year 2008- 09. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 1516 Days. Before Adverting To The Application For Condonation Of Delay, We Deem It Appropriate To Make Reference Of Certain Facts. 1 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri Vanila Vinimay Pvt. Limited

B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 230/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri Vanila Vinimay Pvt. Limited,............Appellant C/o. S.L. Poddar & Company, E-3A, Kanti Chandra Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016 [PAN: AACCV4577A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,................................Respondent Ward-1(3), Kolkata Appearances by: N o n e, appeared

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

B-C)*A (C) Chanderia 14,22,19,318 6.85 4.13 386,836,545 Page 13 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. Satna 15,66,82,502 6.84 2.45 687,836,184 Total: 1,074,672,729 Ld. AO after considering the order u/s 92CA

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

B-C)*A (C) Chanderia 14,22,19,318 6.85 4.13 386,836,545 Page 13 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. Satna 15,66,82,502 6.84 2.45 687,836,184 Total: 1,074,672,729 Ld. AO after considering the order u/s 92CA

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

B-C)*A (C) Chanderia 14,22,19,318 6.85 4.13 386,836,545 Page 13 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. Satna 15,66,82,502 6.84 2.45 687,836,184 Total: 1,074,672,729 Ld. AO after considering the order u/s 92CA

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

B-C)*A (C) Chanderia 14,22,19,318 6.85 4.13 386,836,545 Page 13 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. Satna 15,66,82,502 6.84 2.45 687,836,184 Total: 1,074,672,729 Ld. AO after considering the order u/s 92CA