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

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

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 in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that

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

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

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

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.

139 of the Act is condoned. (ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form No. 10B for years prior to AY. 2018-19, The commissioner of Income-tax are authorized to admit and dispose off by 31-3-2020 such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner will while entertaining

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

9. In the case of Shri Mansukhbhai R. Sorathia, some declaration was made under section 132(4) and in the return of income, assessee has enhanced the income in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A, vis-a-vis the return filed under section 139(1). The Tribunal while considering all these contentions has observed that Revenue

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

9. In the case of Shri Mansukhbhai R. Sorathia, some declaration was made under section 132(4) and in the return of income, assessee has enhanced the income in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A, vis-a-vis the return filed under section 139(1). The Tribunal while considering all these contentions has observed that Revenue

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

D.C.I.T CC - XXIII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SINGHAL ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal of Revenue stand allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay occurred in filing the income tax return. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO. On the other hand the ld. AR filed a paper book which is running from pages 1 to 77 and submitted that there was some dispute with regard to the partition of the family property, so the delay occurred which