BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

46. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Roland Educational & Charitable Trust –vs.- Chief CIT reported in 309 ITR page 50. On the strength of all these decisions, he contended that there is no provision under section 10(23C) to condone the delay

M/S. JEEVANDARSHI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 509/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 4Th Floor Vs 9, India Exchange Place Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj8585A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 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. 23/08/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Had Disallowed The Carry Forward Of Business Loss Of Rs.72,96,597/- On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019 Whereas The Due Date Of Filing Was On 31/10/2019. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 01/11/2019 Declaring Total Loss At Rs.72,96,596/-. The Same Was Processed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Dt. 30/04/2020, Wherein The Claim Of The Assessee Of Carry Forward Of Loss To Subsequent Year Was Rejected On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019. 4. Aggrieved The Assesse Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Simply Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By

46 minutes in filing the return of income, a deduction of Rs. 2,34,41,162/- is denied to assessee. 7. Section 80AC provides that deduction u/s 80IC shall be allowed to assessee if the return is filed on or before the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139. However, section 139(4) carves out an exception

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay and admit these cross objections filed by assessee. 25. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties and perusing the judicial decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We note that the education cess is allowable for deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. For this, we rely on the judgment

DCIT EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA vs. B P PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.637/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year. : 2022-2023) Dcit Exemptions Circle-1(1), Vs B P Poddar Foundation For Education, Kolkata 18, Poddar Court, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aaatb 5418 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiayn, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.12.2024, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai For A.Y.2022- 2023. 2. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 26 Days For Which The Revenue Has Filed The Necessary Condonation Petition. The Reasons Given Are Plausible & Same Are Accepted. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Ar Has Filed His Written Submission Which Read As Under :- Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "A" Bench. Kolkata.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing, ld.AR has filed his written submission which read as under :- BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA "A" BENCH. KOLKATA. 2 IN THE MATTER OF BP PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION 18. Poddar Court, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 001. PAN: AAATB5418M AND IN THE MATTER

D.C.I.T.,-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S IDEAL HEIGHTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal/grounds of appeal on merits. 3. Ground nos. 1 and 2 of revenue’s appeal reads as under:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim in deduction u/s 80lB(10) attributable to Car parking space and preferential location charges aggregating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

NEHA HRIDAYA,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2462/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Neha Hridaya,…………………………….…..………Appellant Ic Viceroy Duke Gardens, Raghunathpur, Kolkata-700059, W.B. [Pan:Aofph7597L] -Vs.- Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru,…..……………………..Respondent Karnataka, Pin Code No. 560500

10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ld. 1 Neha Hridaya Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and prayed to condone the delay, but the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay and without condoning the delay decided the appeal on merits as there

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

SHYAM GREENFIELD DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

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

section 253 before the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata. The details procedure are furnished below:- 1. Calling for ASR by Ld. Pr. CIT Central-1, Kolkata office 25.06.2024 letter dated 2. Letter received by the AO 25.06.2024 I.T.A. No.: 1949/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Adarsh Heights Pvt. Ltd. 3. ASR furnished by AO before the Addl. CIT Central 19.07.2024 Range

DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No. 451/Kol/2013 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 1622/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09

46 of DVC Act, 1948 are as below:- Section 47 – “Accounts and Audit” The accounts of the corporation shall be maintained and audited in such manner as may, in consultation with Auditor General of India, be prescribed. ITA Nos. 1622/Kol/2011 & M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation 6 451/Kol/2013-A-AM 3.3.3. We find that the rules governing Accounts and Audit as prescribed in Section

KARMICK SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4),KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 8. On merit, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in visiting the assessee with penalty amounting to Rs.6,63,154/- under section 271(1)(c). 9. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company has filed its return of income on 07.09.2011 electronically declaring

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the assessee’s appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. For that education cess included in the liability for income tax is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the assessee’s appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. For that education cess included in the liability for income tax is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the assessee’s appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. For that education cess included in the liability for income tax is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short