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

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

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

115 JB were not applicable to the appellant's case for the AY 2009-10. 5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO be directed to assess total income of the appellant for AY 2009-10 only with reference to computational provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, without invoking deeming

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

M/S. ELCON ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(1), KOLKATA

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

115 BAA of the Act read with Rule 21AE of the Income-\ntax Rules, 1962 (the Rules), the assessee company is required to submit Form 10-IC\nelectronically on or before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and\nsuch option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years.\n1.3 Failure

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Ground No. 1 of the revenue’s appeal is against the relief granted by the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of expenditure incurred towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of Rs.1,01,86,507/-. 4. We have heard rival contentions

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

3. For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or amend or alter the grounds already taken either at the time of hearing of the appeal or before.” 5. There is a delay of 424 days in filing of the Cross Objections. The assessee filed objections seeking condonation of the delay. The sum and substance of this condonation

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN OIL PETRONAS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

3. For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or amend or alter the grounds already taken either at the time of hearing of the appeal or before.” 5. There is a delay of 424 days in filing of the Cross Objections. The assessee filed objections seeking condonation of the delay. The sum and substance of this condonation

PRAVAT RANJAN GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2253/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Pravat Ranjan Ghosh,………….…..….………Appellant Room No. 506, Centre Point, 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Avbpg0666L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-2(1), Asansol, Aayakar Bhawan, 116, Vivekananda Sarani, Asansol-713341 West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, C.A, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R

115 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and prayed to condone the delay. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.164/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in re-computing the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same