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

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-12-2017 making additions of Rs.3,55,92,450/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect

COMMERCIAL HOUSE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8 Commercial House Pvt. Limited 9. The substantial grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,33,668/-. The finding of the ld. Assessing Officer is not very specific. Therefore, for the appreciation of facts, we take note

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ADARSH HEIGHTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay of 250 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merit. The appellant has raised four grounds of appeal against the levy of penalty of Rs.90,37,276/- u/s.270A of the Act, 1961. The A.O. has levied the penalty in this case stating that addition of Rs.5,10,82,386/- as disallowance

A.K. PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(3), , HALDIA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2498/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 A.K. Properties Pvt. Limited,………….…………Appellant Vill. Kalikakhali, P.O. + P.S. Math Cahndipur, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur-721659, West Bengal [Pan:Aagca4016P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-27(3), Haldia, Income Tax Office, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Purba Medinipur-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri Anand Sen, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit(D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

depreciation charges of Rs.16,142/-, interest on income tax return amounting to Rs.1,13,696/-, various expenditures of Rs.29,27,941/- and subscription & donation of Rs.27,600/-, which were remained unexplained. After considering 2 A.K. Properties Pvt. Limited the submissions made by the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer concluded that the transactions made by the appellant were sham transactions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAS EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal arises from order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter ‘the Act] by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)], vide order dated 09.01.2023. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that

M/S. BANKURA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OPETATIVE BANK LTD. ,BANKURA vs. DCIT, CIR-3, BANKURA. , BANKURA

In the result, ITA No. 1479/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 253 days is condoned and the matter is taken for adjudication. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law as well as on facts. 2. For that the Ld. AO erred in taking the returned income

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 13. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of that Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding. 14. The rest of the two grounds read as under:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 13. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of that Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding. 14. The rest of the two grounds read as under:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

PEARL PARK BEACH RESORTS,PORT BLAIR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(4),, PORT BLAIR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was grossly unjustified in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal ex- parte. 2. For that on the facts

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

depreciation of equipment, outside services and overheads expenses: • Marketing, VIP and technical sales support (Service Category – • Human Resources support (Service Category - 2) • Finance, Information Systems, Business support and development, manufacturing, Engineering developments,(Service Category – 3) The basis of charge for Specific and Shared services were as under: For Specific Services: On Cost Basis or the basis of man days @ Euro

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

depreciation of equipment, outside services and overheads expenses: • Marketing, VIP and technical sales support (Service Category – • Human Resources support (Service Category - 2) • Finance, Information Systems, Business support and development, manufacturing, Engineering developments,(Service Category – 3) The basis of charge for Specific and Shared services were as under: For Specific Services: On Cost Basis or the basis of man days @ Euro

SELVEL ENKON PROJECTS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 29, , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2009-10 declaring loss of Rs. 14,26,640/-. Later the assessee revised the return of income declaring loss of Rs. 6,10,533/-. The AO, after recording the reasons and taking approval from the competent authority

SELVEL ENKON PROJECTS ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 29, , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2009-10 declaring loss of Rs. 14,26,640/-. Later the assessee revised the return of income declaring loss of Rs. 6,10,533/-. The AO, after recording the reasons and taking approval from the competent authority

SELVEL ENKON PROJECTS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2009-10 declaring loss of Rs. 14,26,640/-. Later the assessee revised the return of income declaring loss of Rs. 6,10,533/-. The AO, after recording the reasons and taking approval from the competent authority

SELVEL ENKON PROJECTS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2009-10 declaring loss of Rs. 14,26,640/-. Later the assessee revised the return of income declaring loss of Rs. 6,10,533/-. The AO, after recording the reasons and taking approval from the competent authority

SELVEL ENKON PROJECTS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2009-10 declaring loss of Rs. 14,26,640/-. Later the assessee revised the return of income declaring loss of Rs. 6,10,533/-. The AO, after recording the reasons and taking approval from the competent authority

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the insurance Page 2 of 20 I.T.A. No.: 498/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. business. Loss of Rs. 5,06,84,425/- declared

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

Appeal is partly allowed and the CO is dismissed

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in ITA No. 1844/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10;

delay is hereby condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication, along with the primary appeal. Both these matters are being disposed of through a single order. 2. In this case, the Ld. AO made a number of additions which were challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who is seen to have granted relief substantially. 2.1 Aggrieved with the impugned

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 1.3 Since the issues are common, all the eight appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 466/KOL/2018: “1) That on the facts and circumstances