BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

132(4) that does not mean some money, bullion, jewellery or valuable was found and seized. The extra income disclosed has not been demonstrated as representing that money, bullion or jewellery. 10. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

132(4) that does not mean some money, bullion, jewellery or valuable was found and seized. The extra income disclosed has not been demonstrated as representing that money, bullion or jewellery. 10. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DISHA REALCON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DISHA REALCON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. PRAFUL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support