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

112 taxmann.com 134 (SC): “Held that where revenue did not expressly refute stand taken by assessee that they had no knowledge about passing of order of Tribunal, dated 29-12-2003, until June, 2008, assessee's delay of 1754 days in filing appeal before Bombay High Court against Tribunal order was to be condoned. The brief facts of the case

MICRO CAPITALS PVT. LTD. ,THANE vs. DCIT,C.C-4(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ruia –vs.- CIT reported in (2011) 15 taxmann.com 310 (Allahabad). In support of this contention for condonation of delay, relevant extract of the condonation petition is extracted below:- 2 Micro Capitals Pvt. Limited 3 Micro Capitals Pvt. Limited 4 Micro

DAROGA FAMILY FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

condoned the delay and restored the matter to the file of ld. CIT (Exemption). It is essential to quote the order of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench which is as under: “9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that this Tribunal in identical facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

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. 33. Ground No. 1 raised in this Cross Objection is as follows: “(1) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Education Cess and the Secondary and Higher Education Cess incurred by the assessee is deductible while computing profits from business

LOKSAKHA WELFARE SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

112 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata ('CIT(E)'), has passed the order dated 22 February 2025 under section

M/S. DANIELI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Danieli India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Pan: Aabcg5359E) Circle-2(1), Kolkata.

112 taxmann.com 134(SC) 2. N. BalakrishnanVs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 3. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 4. Golden Times Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (2020) 113 taxmann.com 524(Delhi) 5. Ms. Swati Pawa Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-9, New Delhi

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law to hold that disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D will not apply where no exempt income is received

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. The issue raised in ground no.1 to 4 and 8 is against the order of Id. CIT (A) deleting the Arm's Length Price adjustment of ₹3,97,99,637 as made by the Id. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer on account interest on loan.\n3.1. The facts in brief are that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing as the reasons cited are bonafide and sufficient. 3. The issue raised in ground no.1 is deletion of addition of ₹8,07,00,000/- by the learned CIT (A) as made by the learned AO on account of unsecured loans taken by the assessee during the year. 3.1. The facts

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ANUSHIKHA INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also following the ratios laid down by the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, High Courts and Apex Court on the concerned issue and held that the loan transactions could not be considered as cash deposits u/s 68 of the Act and thus, the Ld. AO's order was not sustainable

ITO, WARD - 31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. RAJSHREE AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

condone the delay and admit the appeal. Shri S. Jhajharia, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Satyajit Mondal, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee per its appeal are as under:- “1. That the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions of Rs.9,99,900/-, Rs.89,600/- and Rs.10

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n1.3 Since the issues are common, all the eight appeals were heard\ntogether and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity.\n2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.\n466/KOL/2018:\n“1) That on the facts and circumstances

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

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n1.3 Since the issues are common, all the eight appeals were heard\ntogether and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity.\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.\n466/KOL/2018:\n“1) That on the facts and circumstances