THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICIAL SCIENCE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The West Bengal National University of Juridical Science The West Bengal National University of Juridical Science law for the propositions that that, under such circumstances, revision u/s 263 of the Act is revision u/s 263 of the Act is not permissible. We would refer to these as and when necessary. We would refer to these

PAHALAMPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Ltd. 4. It was the submission that the only issue in the appeal is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein the assessee has been

LOYOLA HIGH SCHOOL,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

4) on 31.03.2017. The ld. Assessing Officer took cognizance of section 11 and observed that the assessee failed to fulfil the twin conditions, i.e. submission of Form No. 10 as well as filing of the return within time limit under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for the benefit of accumulation under

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

section 139(1), the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 Beni Prasad Lahoti 11. Relying upon both these decisions, we allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 12. The Registry has pointed out a delay of 95 days in filing these appeals, but actually there

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

section 139(1), the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 Beni Prasad Lahoti 11. Relying upon both these decisions, we allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 12. The Registry has pointed out a delay of 95 days in filing these appeals, but actually there

M/S. JEEVANDARSHI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 509/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 4Th Floor Vs 9, India Exchange Place Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj8585A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/08/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Had Disallowed The Carry Forward Of Business Loss Of Rs.72,96,597/- On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019 Whereas The Due Date Of Filing Was On 31/10/2019. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 01/11/2019 Declaring Total Loss At Rs.72,96,596/-. The Same Was Processed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Dt. 30/04/2020, Wherein The Claim Of The Assessee Of Carry Forward Of Loss To Subsequent Year Was Rejected On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019. 4. Aggrieved The Assesse Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Simply Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By

4) carves out an exception to the time limit u/s 139(1) for filing the return of income. Therefore, time limit for filing the return of income is neither inflexible nor inelastic. Thus, the provisions of section 80AC are directory and even the Board may, under the provision of section 119, condone the delay

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the revenue. ITA No.1987/Kol/2013-M/s. Kilburn Engineering Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 4. As far as the issue raised by the revenue in the grounds of appeal is concerned, the same relates to eligibility of the assessee’s for exemption u/s 54G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in respect of a sum of Rs.10

M/S. KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BUDBUD, BURDWAN (EAST) vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 106/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S. Kalyan Educational Society,..............Appellant Budbud Bye Pass (North), Distg. Bardhaman-713403 [Pan: Aabtk2860K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, Durgapur, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Smt. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

4. Thus, for a trust registered U/s 12AA of the Act to avail the benefit of exemption u/s 11 shall inter-alia file its return of income within the time allowed u/s 139 oi the Act. But this Circular clarifies the position of law with regard to filing of return of income under Sec. 139

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMRI HOSPITAL LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of assessee’s CO is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 115JB of the Act. It immediately filed the CO on the advice of the consultant when it was received. In the aforesaid facts & circumstances we find that there is nothing to suggest any deliberate or intentional delay in filing the appeal to the Hon’ble ITAT. The assessee had nothing to gain by delaying the application. The assessee filed

SATREENA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay cannot be condoned. Aggrieved by such order of ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has moved the appeal before the Tribunal. According to assessee, the return under section 139(1) was already filed on 06.07.2017 while method of filing Form 67 was prescribed only on 19.09.2017. Thus it was beyond the control of assessee to file Form 67 before filing

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 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. 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. 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. 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