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

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the action

SRI KRISHNENDU CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

condone the delay and to proceed hearing of the appeal. 5. The first issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act is invalid as the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer. 6. At the outset, we find that assessee

NITDAA FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(E), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishranitdaa Foundation, Commissioner Of Income Fe 261, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Tax (Exemption), Kolkata, Vs West Bengal -700106 10B, Middleton Row, (Pan: Aadtn2308K) West Bengal - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB. 7. The said legal position further gets fortified by the fact that the CBDT on multiple occasions had extended the time limit in filing the application in Form No. 10A and/or 10AB as under. a. The CBDT vide Circular No. 12 of 2021 dated 25.06.2021 in exercise of its power

ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. M/S. ANUBANDH FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. First, we shall take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2390/KOL/2024. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of share capital

RINA RAY,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2),, DARJEELING

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

section 50C of the Act. The appellant had duly disclosed the capital gain in her return filed on 30.05.2022 u/s.148 considering the full value of Rs.38,83,125/-. The appellant had considered the cost of acquisition of the sold property as on 01.04.2001 for Rs.6,00,000/- and computed her capital gain at Rs.22,51,125/- after considering the indexed

RINKU RANI PANJA,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), MIDNAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1471/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Rinku Rani Panja,………..………………..………Appellant D-28, Burdge Town, Kotwali, Midnapore-721101, West Bengal [Pan:Anipp7116R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(3), Midnapore, Office Of The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amaravati Building, 1St Floor, Keranitola, Midnaporle-721101, West Bengal Appearances By: N O N E, 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: July 30, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, I have decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assesese filed her return of income on 25.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs.109,160/-. In compliance to statutory

ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD.,, 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.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

condon the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. M/s Height Insurance Services Ltd. Assessment Year:2009-10 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows: 1. “In the facts and in the circumstances and on points of law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO highlighted that

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BUDGE BUDGE REFINERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. These three appeals pertain to same assessee, different assessment years, common issues involved, therefore, therefore, all the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Revenue appeal in ITA No. 388/Kol/2014, pertaining

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BUDGE BUDGE REFINERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. These three appeals pertain to same assessee, different assessment years, common issues involved, therefore, therefore, all the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Revenue appeal in ITA No. 388/Kol/2014, pertaining

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BUDGE BUDGE REFINERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. These three appeals pertain to same assessee, different assessment years, common issues involved, therefore, therefore, all the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Revenue appeal in ITA No. 388/Kol/2014, pertaining

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

NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 for adjudication. 2. Since the issues in all the appeals are common except for an additional issue in A.Y. 2011-12, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.. The assessee is in appeal before

NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3, , KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 for adjudication. 2. Since the issues in all the appeals are common except for an additional issue in A.Y. 2011-12, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.. The assessee is in appeal before

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 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, 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