INDIAN EX-SERVICE LEAGUE(W.B.),KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Ex-Services Ito (Exemption), Ward- League, (W.B.) 1(1), Kolkata. Cp/7/3, Block-Cp, Vs. Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata -700 091. Pan: Aaati 3629 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amiya Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Acit Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee For A.Y. 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Dated 17.09.2021 U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That The Cit(A) Fails To Understand That The Tax Is Payable On Income Not On Gross Receipts Thus Disallowance Of Revenue Expenditures Pent Is Unlawful, Whimsical Based On Surmises & Thus Order Passed By The Cit(A) Confirming The Assessment Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

124/- @ 15% of total receipts u/s 11 and 12 derived during the previous year under consideration and deduction u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 17.03.2021 wherein the exemption u/s 11 of the Act has been denied to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the action of CPC, Bengaluru, the assessee preferred

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

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

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)

3 I hereby submit that the Trust was earlier registered under section 12A and 80G of the Act. The certificates are enclosed. My client have not claimed any exemption prior to 1.4.2021 Should you require any further information I shall be happy to furnish the same " The submissions of the applicant/assessee have been considered carefully and found not acceptable. From

GOURI SHANKAR GOYAL,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathangouri Shankar Goyal Vs Acit, Circle-1, Siliguri C/O Omprakash Agarwal(Goyal) Agrasen Road, Khalpara, Siliguri-734005 Pan No. :Adgpg 0529 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025

delay of 175 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. At the time of hearing, the Id. AR has raised the additional grounds challenging the reopening as follows :- Additional Grounds: 1. For that the Reasons Recorded in this case is mechanical and without any information suggesting escapement of income, hence such

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

JHUNU BAIN GAIN,KOLKATA vs. ITO WD-50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap)

section 143(3), appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and since there was Assessment Year: 2009-10 a delay of 137 days on the part of the assessee in filing the said appeal, application was moved by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) seeking condition of the said delay on the ground that

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

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

RANJIT KUMAR PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

condonation of delay in the filing of appeal. At that point of time the appellant has submitted that "the Cost Accountant Shri Gurudas Dey was on leave so the delay in the filing of appeal." Shri Gurudas Dey is the td. AIR of the appellant in this case. Thus it is seen that the said excuse, that one person