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, 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. 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. 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. 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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

132A of the Income-tax Act for searches conducted\nupto 31-5-2003. Thus, the jurisdictional fact of a search being conducted prior to\nissue of notice under section 158BC of the Act need to be satisfied. The Special\nBench of Bangalore Tribunal in C. Ramaiah Reddy v. Asstt. CIT (Inv.) [2004] 268\nITR (AT) 491 held as under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3.\nThe issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the order\nof Id. CIT (A) annulling the assessment framed u/s 147 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Id. AO on the ground of being\ninvalid and void ab initio without considering the facts

JAIDEEP HALWASIYA,INDIA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, deeming it to be for a bona fide and reasonable cause. The Tribunal also held that the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act were initiated beyond the prescribed time limit, making the notice and assessment invalid.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "153C", "153C(3)", "69A", "132", "132A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DHANSAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee had filed its original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2010 declaring income of Nil. Later, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961, was conducted on 30.08.2012 on the assessee as a part

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

SUMANGAL JEWELS P. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC- 4(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

132A of the Income-tax Act for searches conducted\nupto 31-5-2003. Thus, the jurisdictional fact of a search being conducted prior to\nissue of notice under section 158BC of the Act need to be satisfied. The Special\nBench of Bangalore Tribunal in C. Ramaiah Reddy v. Asstt. CIT (Inv.) [2004] 268\nITR (AT) 491 held as under