LAKSHMI MATA HIMGHAR PVT LTD,NAISARAI, ARAMBAG vs. ACIT CIR-23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-23(1), Lakshmi Mata Himghar Pvt. Hooghly Ltd. Naisarai, Arambag, Grand Trunk Rd., Chinsurah Vs. Dist. Hooghly-712602, R.S., Chinsurah-712102, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5463F Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025

117 days for which the condonation petition is filed. 03. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay is not properly explained. 04. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the reasons for delay appear to be sufficient and bonafide

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

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

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, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PROFICIENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

condone the delay and admit the cross objection of the assessee for hearing. M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1346/Kol/2016&C. O. No. 2016&C. O. No. 36/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: Assessment Year:2012-13 6. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for . At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

117 Taxmann.com (519) (Kol-Trib) and the assessee has viewed that it is eligible for refund of DDT which is specified in respective India-UK DTAA and has special relief in present cross-objection, praying for condonation of such delay of 725 days. 10. On the other hand ld. DR submitted that there is no evidence for reasonable explanation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

117 Taxmann.com (519) (Kol-Trib) and the assessee has viewed that it is eligible for refund of DDT which is specified in respective India-UK DTAA and has special relief in present cross-objection, praying for condonation of such delay of 725 days. 10. On the other hand ld. DR submitted that there is no evidence for reasonable explanation

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.

117 taxmann.com 920 (Mumbai-Trib.) 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently opposed the plea of the assessee and contended that the law does not help a sleeping person/litigant. According to the ld. DR, the assessee should have been vigilant and ought to have pursued the case diligently and in case even if Tribunal is inclined to condone the delay

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

condoned by the Ld. Addl/Jt. CIT(A), there was justified reason for setting aside the order and restore the appeal to the Ld. Addl/Jt. CIT(A) on this ground alone since the merits of the case have not been discussed. However, since the facts can be ascertained from the record and setting aside the order would cause further inconvenience

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

117,925 under section 43B of the Act.” 4.1. The Learned AR argued that since the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd 292 ITR 470 (Cal) has struck down the provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act, the deduction may be granted towards leave encashment made on provision basis itself in line

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

117,925 under section 43B of the Act.” 4.1. The Learned AR argued that since the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd 292 ITR 470 (Cal) has struck down the provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act, the deduction may be granted towards leave encashment made on provision basis itself in line

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAIMA EQUITIES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in treating the share trading loss of Rs. 2,07,38,602/- as normal business loss instead of speculation loss in the facts and circumstances of the case

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMICUS HEALTHCARE SERVICES & SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay is hereby condoned. 2. This appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Asansol (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”, vide order dated 30.05.2024. 2.1 In this case, the Ld.AO added Rs. 60,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of share

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, 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.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.\n466/KOL/2018:\n“1) That on the facts and circumstances