VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CER-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 11. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. Commissioner has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and setting aside the second reassessment order dated 30.09.2019. Before adverting to the show-cause notice issued under section 263, we deem it appropriate to take

GIRIK ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD 6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 9. Vide issue raised in ground no. 2, the assessee has assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act of the Act which is invalid, ab-initio void, ultra vires and ex-facie nullity in the eyes

KANOI TEA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 963 days and admit this appeal for adjudication. 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. C.I.T.-2, Kolkata erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in order to impose his own views

BHARAT TIRTHA RICE MILL,BURDWAN EAST vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 10. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment order for passing a fresh assessment order. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condoning the delay though appellant has submitted a reasonable cause of delay of 17 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in fact, there was a delay of only 17 days in filing of appeal as could be seen from Form-35, the date of service of notice of demand was 20.04.2018 and appeal was filed

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GANESH REALTY & MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.581/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. M/s. Ganesh Realty & Mall Development Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2012-13 3. The grievances raised by the Revenueare as follows: “1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the complete assessment passed by the Addl

SEARSALE SRI RAMKRISHNA SHARADA CHETANA SANGHA,BURDWAN vs. WARD-2(1), EXEMPTION. , DURGAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

120/-, due to delay in filing Form 10B report in on line portal. In first appeal, before the CIT(A), NFAC , ( against order of CPC, Bangalore ) the first appeal authority has passed the appeal order, dated 06/01/2023, ignoring the CBDT circular No. 2/2020, on the issue of condonation of delay in uploading Form 10B electronically in online portal. ~ CIRCULAR

SEARSALE SRI RAM KRISHNA SHARADA CHETANA SANGHA,BURDWAN vs. WARD-2(1),EXEMPTION. , DURGAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

120/-, due to delay in filing Form 10B report in on line portal. In first appeal, before the CIT(A), NFAC , ( against order of CPC, Bangalore ) the first appeal authority has passed the appeal order, dated 06/01/2023, ignoring the CBDT circular No. 2/2020, on the issue of condonation of delay in uploading Form 10B electronically in online portal. ~ CIRCULAR

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

120/- was declared by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, various transactions entered into by the assessee in shares were either in the nature of speculative or non- speculative transactions and accordingly he proceeded to examine separately the nature of all such transactions which had given rise to income/loss to the assessee. On such examination

SMITA BISWAS,JALPAIGURI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

condone the delay. 5. The assessee has raised legal issue before us that the assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri instead of jurisdiction with ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalpaiguri who issued the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and has the pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of Instruction No. 1/2011{F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)}. 6. Facts

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, CIR.-8(2), KOLKATA vs. NISSIN ABC LOGISTICS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Garg

delay on the part of the Revenue in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is accordingly condoned and this appeal of the Revenue is being disposed off on merit. 3. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of rendering of Logistic Services. The return of income for the year under consideration

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

JAS EQUIPMENTS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2,, DURGAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 519 & 520/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Limited,…Appellant S-12, Durgapur Industrial Estate, J.P. Avenue, Durgapur-713212, W.B. [Pan:Aabcj9126E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned for both the appeals. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee-Company is engaged in the business of fabrication and doing business in the name and ITA Nos. 519 & 520/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) JAS Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Limited style as “Jas Equipment and Engineers Pvt. Ltd.’ during the year under consideration i.e. 2011-12 relevant

JAS EQUIPMENTS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2,, DURGAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 519 & 520/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Limited,…Appellant S-12, Durgapur Industrial Estate, J.P. Avenue, Durgapur-713212, W.B. [Pan:Aabcj9126E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned for both the appeals. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee-Company is engaged in the business of fabrication and doing business in the name and ITA Nos. 519 & 520/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) JAS Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Limited style as “Jas Equipment and Engineers Pvt. Ltd.’ during the year under consideration i.e. 2011-12 relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJ TRIMURTI INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of\nthe Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay.\n03. The Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition by learned\nCIT (A) on merits by raising three grounds whereas, the assessee by\nfiling cross objection challenging the validity of the order passed by\nthe learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019. Since the\nassessee has raised legal issue in the cross objection, therefore

GAUTAM KUMAR SADHU,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 24(1),, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Acit, 24(1), Hooghly, Gautam Kumar Sadhu Aaykar Bhawan, Khadina More, Mahakalitala, P.O. Bansberia, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712102, Vs. Hooghly-712502, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Atfps6692E Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal. 04. The assessee has challenged the assessment framed by the ld. AO on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Besides, the assessee has challenged the assessment on the ground that the notice

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. These three appeals filed by the different assessee’s emanate from a common search conducted at their premises, involves common and identical issues, therefore, appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, since facts remain similar and the grounds

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. These three appeals filed by the different assessee’s emanate from a common search conducted at their premises, involves common and identical issues, therefore, appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, since facts remain similar and the grounds