BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

135 results for “condonation of delay”+ House Propertyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai500Chennai384Delhi223Bangalore206Karnataka140Kolkata135Jaipur129Hyderabad126Pune111Chandigarh89Ahmedabad79Visakhapatnam53Calcutta40Amritsar35Cuttack35Indore32Patna28Lucknow25Cochin24Surat21Nagpur20SC12Rajkot9Telangana8Agra6Allahabad6Guwahati6Raipur6Varanasi4Orissa2Jodhpur2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Panaji1Jabalpur1Himachal Pradesh1Dehradun1Kerala1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68Section 143(3)58Section 26338Limitation/Time-bar38Condonation of Delay33Section 115J30Section 14A27Section 25024House Property

ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

ITA 788/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Mondal, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows: In the fact and circumstance of the case the ld CIT(A)-9, Kolkata has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of and deduction U/s 54F of the I.T. Act,61. 4. The facts

Showing 1–20 of 135 · Page 1 of 7

24
Disallowance22
Deduction17
Section 7316

NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1319/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

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

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Biswas, JCIT
Section 10Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

house property , interest and dividend. The original return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11 was filed on 18.8.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 11,13,87,024/- and no assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made in this case. A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 6.2.2012 in the residential

MUKUND RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1317/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

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

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Biswas, JCIT
Section 10Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

house property , interest and dividend. The original return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11 was filed on 18.8.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 11,13,87,024/- and no assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made in this case. A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 6.2.2012 in the residential

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

ITA 1189/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri R.S Sahay, FCA,, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT,ld.DR
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for further adjudication. 7.1. The issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rental income from godowns derived by the assessee is to be taxed as business income of the assessee or as income from house property

DCIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEWARI WAREHOUSING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical

ITA 1316/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Dcit, Circle-26 M/S Tewari Warehousing Co. बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan Hide Shed Dump, Old V/S. Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Goragacha Road, Kolkata-88 Road, (South), [Pan No.Aacft 5579 K] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Vikash Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit, Range- 53, Kolkata U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Entire Gross Receipts S Business Income & Allow Deductions As Per Section 28 To 43 Of The It Act When Rental Income Of Rs.2,31,00,000/- Was Already Included In The Gross Receipts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Estimation Of Business Profits Of Rs.2,37,72,132/- Made By The Ao Though Rejection Of Assessee’S Books Of Account U/S 145(3) Considering The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Contrary To The Law & Fact Of The Case. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To, Add To, Alter Or Modify Any One Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Above.”

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194Section 27Section 28

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue. 3. The brief description about the assessee-firm is that it is partnership firm and engaged in providing warehousing, go-down, blending and packing services. The assessee is providing such services under the agreements with the big tea companies such as Tata Tea, Hindustan Unilever (HUL), Pataka Tea etc. Such activity

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. 14. The only effective issue raised in the grounds of appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law in upholding the order of AO wherein the AO has denied the benefit of exemption claimed

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the action

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 520/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 57

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal, out of which Ground No. 2 is the substantial ground of appeal. In this ground, the grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of ld. Assessing Officer vide which deduction of interest

BHABATARINI GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1) , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2629/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.2629/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Bhabatarini Griha Nirman Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central-12(1), Kolkata. Ltd. South Block, Ideal Plaza, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcb9211C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed In Case No.620/Cit(A)-4/C-12(1)/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reason Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition Dated 19.12.18 & On Account Of No Objection From The Revenue Side, We Condone Its 11 Days’ Delay In Filing Of The Main Appeal Stated To Be Attributable To Communication Gap & Compilation Of Necessary Records. The Main Appeal Is Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 24

condone its 11 days’ delay in filing of the main appeal stated to be attributable to communication gap and compilation of necessary records. The main appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. I.T.A No.2629/Kol/2018 3. Coming to main appeal, we notice that the sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowing business loss of Rs.8

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1580/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 251

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 6. It is the argument of the ld. D.R. that the learned CIT erred in holding the income from Bani Bhawan as the income from business instead of income from house property

RAM NARESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1897/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1896/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

VINOD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1895/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 306/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

condone the delay and admit the Revenue’s appeal for hearing. 3. First we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No.306/Kol/2013. The grounds raised by the assessee per its appeal are as under:- “1. That, on facts as well as on law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-VI, Kol has erred in confirming the action of Learned

SMT REENA MAJUMDAR,MIDNAPORE vs. CIT (A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 746/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of the appeal of the assessee on merit. 3. The issue raised in Ground No. 1 relates to the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of gift claimed to be received by the assessee from her husband by treating

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANUKA VENTURES PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1413/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 7883 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)

condone the delay of the revenue and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 M/s Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in directing the ld AO to treat the receipt from M/s Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd as Business income

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S PAWAN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2160/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr.Kureel, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate
Section 14ASection 24Section 73

delay is condoned. The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of trading in shares, granting of ITA No.2160/Kol/2013-M/s.Pawan Industrial Corporation Ltd.A.Y.2004-05 loans and advances. It derives income from the aforesaid business besides income under the head “Income from House Property

M/S SOMU PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 709/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Him With Ita No. 709/Kol/14 M/S. Somu Properties Pvt. Ltd 1

Section 249(2)

condone the delay and adjudicate the issue(s) on merits afresh and to pass an order as per law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT-A to prosecute its case properly without seeking any adjournment. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19/04/2017 J.Sudhakar

DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AVANTHA REALTY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 895/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi & On Considering The Facts & Circumstances, The Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi Was Pleased To Hold That The Delay Of 19 Days Is Not Extraordinary & Explanation Offered By The Appellant-Revenue To Be Plausible & On Merits. The Hon’Ble High Court Was Pleased To Set Aside The Order Passed By This Tribunal & Restored The Appeal To The File Of This Tribunal For Disposal In Accordance With Law. Therefore The Delay Of 19 Days Are Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Singh, JCIT- Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, AR
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 40

delay of 19 days are condoned. I.T.A No.895/Kol/2014 M/s Avantha Realty Ltd. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, the only issue raised by the appellant-Revenue is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made on account of difference between rent received by the assessee and fair market value for the properties