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

condoned, then, the assessee would fulfil all 9 Loyola High School ingredients of section 11(2) for claiming accumulation. In other words, it has filed form 10 within due date of filing return u/s 139(1). This is the first condition. The second condition is that return should be filed within due date u/s 139(1). This delay

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.

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 denied the benefit of deduction

DURGAPUR PASSENGERS CARRIERS ASSOCIATION,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Durgapur Passengers Carriers Ito, Ward-1(3), Association Durgapur Vs. Prantika Bus Stand, Durgapur ‘A’ Zone, Burdwan-713204. Pan: Aaaad 3606 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1040758647(1) Dated 15.03.2022 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. 8.1. Section 143(1): From the perusal of the above section, it is noted that once the return of income is treated as invalid, it results into situation as if assessee has failed to furnish the return and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. B Section

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee raised the following grounds which is extracted below: “1. That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law as well as in facts

SAIKAT CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO 61(1), KOLKATA

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

delay\nof 1296 days. We have gone through the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee\nand find that while filing return of income the assessee declared a correct salary as his\nincome as included the salary from Belgium. However, while processing return CPC,\nBengaluru issued a defect under 139(9) on 04.02.2020 stating that there is a mismatch

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

9 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/s. Kalyan Educational Society ld. A.R. submitted that since the assessee has filed the return of income on 31.03.2021 and Form 10B on 31.03.2021, the delay is covered by the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, this return of income as well as Form 10B are to be treated as filed

DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

139(1) of the Act on 25.07.2018. Accordingly, the assessee's case was reopened under section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to file any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

139(1) of the Act on 25.07.2018. Accordingly, the assessee's case was reopened under section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to file any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

139(1) of the Act on 25.07.2018. Accordingly, the assessee's case was reopened under section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to file any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

BASTUHARA SAHAYATA SAMITI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

condonation of delay in on-line filing of Form No. 10 was rejected by the Ld. C.I.T. (Exemption) vide order u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act dated 20.12.2018 and as such set apart claim of Rs.35,00,000/- has not been given cognizance to while computing the income for the A.Y. 2016-17. 11. In regard to point (i) above

SUDHA DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. AO WARD 40 (4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

section 21 (1) (appeal from special court to HC) of NIA Act that no appeal shall be entertained after expiry of 90 days. Thus, an application seeking to condone delay beyond 90 days in filing an appeal against the judgment, sentence, order, not being an interlocutory order passed by a special court is maintainable on sufficient cause being shown

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

ITO(EXEMPTION),WARD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH AMIYA MEMORIAL TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

condonation of delay. This Circular in itself shows that the Income-tax Department was aware about the technical glitches and the problems faced by the tax-payers in furnishing various types of Forms including Form No. 10B is with regard to the furnishing of audit report in case of Trusts and Societies. In the instant case since, delay is merely

RAMAKRISHNA RAO,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

condonation of delay, it is mentioned in column 15 that “since I had the first available remedy to make a Rectification application u/s. 154 against the order u/s. 143(1) and thereon the rectification order has been received on 23.02.2023.” since the assessee had filed the rectification application which was disallowed it had the option to file an appeal

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. 14. The only effective issue raised in the grounds of appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law in upholding the order of AO wherein the AO has denied the benefit of exemption claimed

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condoning the delay though appellant has submitted a reasonable cause of delay of 17 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in fact, there was a delay of only 17 days in filing of appeal as could be seen from Form-35, the date of service of notice of demand was 20.04.2018 and appeal was filed

M/S SIKAR ZILLA WELFARE TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Sikar Zilla Welfare Income Tax Officer, Trust Ward 1(3), Exempt 1A, Sikar Bhawan, Vs. Ashutosh Dey Lane, Kolkata-400071 Kolkata-700006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts3808D Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024

139(1) of the Act on 22nd August, 2018. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act but CPC denied the exemption because audit report on From10B was e-filed belatedly on 23rd March, 2020, i.e., after filing of income tax return. The assessee also filed a condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) to learned Pr. Chief

DCIT-4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MANAKSIA ALUMINIUM CO. LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 143(3)/144C of the Act on 27.12.2017 framed by ld. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata. 2. We notice that both the instant appeals by Revenue are against the same order of ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the later appeal bearing ITA No. 281/KOL/2021 is dismissed as infructuous. 3. The appeal bearing ITA Nos. 92/KOL/2021 has been filed before

DCIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MANAKSIA ALUMINIUM CO. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 143(3)/144C of the Act on 27.12.2017 framed by ld. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata. 2. We notice that both the instant appeals by Revenue are against the same order of ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the later appeal bearing ITA No. 281/KOL/2021 is dismissed as infructuous. 3. The appeal bearing ITA Nos. 92/KOL/2021 has been filed before