ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

delay of 38 days which is clearly evident from the condonation letter filed by the Income should be dismissed. 2. In this case the Ld. AO is very much aware that original asst. was completed on the basis of selection of the case under scrutiny as per CASS(Large share premium) which is clearly mentioned on first page

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMRI HOSPITAL LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of assessee’s CO is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. The inter-connected issue raised by assessee in its CO is whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in applying the provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act though the assessee has declared loss in its income return under the normal provision of the Act. 6. At the outset

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

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

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

condone the delay in filing of appeals by the assessee in ITA No. 1317/Kol/2016 and ITA No. 1319/Kol/2016 and admit those appeals for adjudication. 6 ITA Nos.1317-1320/Kol/2016 Mukund Rungta & Nandlal Rungta.., AY 2010-11 3. The primary facts which triggered the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by the ld CIT are as follows :- (a) The assessee

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

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

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

condone the delay in filing of appeals by the assessee in ITA No. 1317/Kol/2016 and ITA No. 1319/Kol/2016 and admit those appeals for adjudication. 6 ITA Nos.1317-1320/Kol/2016 Mukund Rungta & Nandlal Rungta.., AY 2010-11 3. The primary facts which triggered the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by the ld CIT are as follows :- (a) The assessee

ITO, KOLKATA vs. AJIT KUMAR MINDA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the\nassessee are dismissed

condone the delay and\nadmit the appeal for adjudication.\n3. First take up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No.2668/Kol/2024. Brief\nfacts are that the assessee is an individual and filed original return of\nincome for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring total income of\nRs.9,28,670/- having salary income, capital gains and income from other\nsources. The assessment

M/S/ SINGHANIA MERLIN ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

38,66,198/-), Rs. 73,15,655/- (17.20% of Rs. 4,25,32,878/-) was required to be issued while passing the assessment order. (iii) On verification of the details, it was noticed that there is interest on borrowed capital with simultaneous existence of debit balance in partner’s capital account. The A.O. has failed to consider the provisions

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)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

RAVISH LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial