JYOTI RANJAN ROY REPRESENTED BY LIMITED GUARDIAN SUVAJIT ROY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 50, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground

JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground

SWARUP KUMAR SAHA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 50(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swarup Kumar Saha…............…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 40C/1, Jessore Road Barasat Kolkata – 700 124 [Pan : Algps 1418 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(2), Kolkata.………………………………...……...…………….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Provash Roy, Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 20Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

condonation of delay, therefore, Tribunal did not condone the delay. This decision is also not applicable

BISWAJIT ROY,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , JALPAIGURI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

condonation of delay of 436 days. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has analysed the assessee’s request for condonation

QUALITY BAGS EXPORTERS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-IV, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 2787 To 2790/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2001-02,2002-03,2003-04 & 2004-05

condoned. When the very liability of the assessee was non-existent the delay in filing appeal should be condoned

LOYOLA HIGH SCHOOL,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay not mentioned above, the power of condonation of delay u/s . 119(2)(b) of the Act will

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,(I.T.) CIR.-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

condonation of delay came\nto be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground

BOUTIQUE DE FLEUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 446/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Boutique De Fleur,………………………………..Appellant Lawgical Consultants, 2D, Bentinck Street, Unit No. A, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aajfb1035D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

condone the delay, but the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay and without condoning

ARVIND METALS & MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

condonation of delay. There is no merit in the case of the assessee for condonation of delay

SANTANU DAS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-25(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condoning the delay; and 8. Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid

M/S B.N. DUTTA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [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 Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

delay in filing of appeal is not condoned and application for delay condonation is rejected, the case

VEDANSH TRADERS PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO-WARD-13(1),KOL, KOLKATA

Appeal is hereby dismissed on the point of limitation

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

delay cannot be condoned. Such unexplained delay is to be construed as an uncondonable delay. Consequently

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties

ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIR-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties

M/S ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties