I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.2652/Kol/2019 & CO No. 15/Kol/2020 PCM Strescon Overseas Ventures Ltd., AY 2012-13 2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee Shri Akkal Dudhwewala submitted that ITA No. 2652/Kol/2019 is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 dated 24.07.2019, wherein

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.2652/Kol/2019 & CO No. 15/Kol/2020 PCM Strescon Overseas Ventures Ltd., AY 2012-13 2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee Shri Akkal Dudhwewala submitted that ITA No. 2652/Kol/2019 is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 dated 24.07.2019, wherein

BISWAJIT ROY,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , JALPAIGURI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

142(1) 04/12/2020 04/12/2020 e-mail 272A(1)(d) penalty levied 30/12/2020 30/12/2020 e-mail No Response Letter 02/01/2021 02/01/2021 e-mail 2. Thereafter, the assessee approached the CIT(A) requesting for relief from the enhancement to income, after condonation of delay of 436 days. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has analysed the assessee’s request for condonation of delay

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8. The assessee has raised four grounds of appeal, out of this Ground No. 4 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding. 9. The grievances pleaded in Grounds No. 1 to 3 revolve around a single issue, namely

DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

delay in filing the appeal is for bonafide reasons and is being condoned by admitting the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 4. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of long term capital gain on sale of equity shares amounting

SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI,MURSHIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT)-14, SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Kolkata, for the assessment year 2010-11. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows. (1) That

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CER-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal against the 263 order of the Ld. PCIT, dated 28.03.2022 for A.Y: 2012-13. 1. That an assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 30.09.2019 passed by DCIT, Central Circle-1 (1), Kolkata for A.Y 2012-13 wherein the AO assessed the income

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal against the 263 order of the Ld. PCIT, dated 28.03.2022 for A.Y: 2012-13. 1. That an assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 30.09.2019 passed by DCIT, Central Circle-1 (1), Kolkata for A.Y 2012-13 wherein the AO assessed the income

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

condone the delay on the part of the assessee in filing its appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to dispose of the same on merit. 3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- The assessee is a partnership firm, which carried on the business of buying, selling, trading or otherwise dealing

PURULIA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,PURULIA vs. ACIT, CIR. 3, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

delay has already been explained and condoned. 3. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged re-opening of assessment by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Brief facts as emerging out from the assessment order would reveal that the assesese has filed its return of income on 02.07.2007 in compliance

BOUTIQUE DE FLEUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 446/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Boutique De Fleur,………………………………..Appellant Lawgical Consultants, 2D, Bentinck Street, Unit No. A, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aajfb1035D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 334 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 2 Boutique De Fleur 4. The facts in brief are that during the demonetization period

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

section 142(2)\nmandates any such material adverse to the facts of assessee\ncollected by AO u/s 142(1) has to be necessarily put to the assessee\nu/s 142(3) before utilizing the same for assessment so as to\nconstitute as reliable material evidence through the process of\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.\"\nSimilarly, in the case

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

section 142(2)\nmandates any such material adverse to the facts of assessee\ncollected by AO u/s 142(1) has to be necessarily put to the assessee\nu/s 142(3) before utilizing the same for assessment so as to\nconstitute as reliable material evidence through the process of\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.\"\nSimilarly, in the case

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

section 142(2)\nmandates any such material adverse to the facts of assessee\ncollected by AO u/s 142(1) has to be necessarily put to the assessee\nu/s 142(3) before utilizing the same for assessment so as to\nconstitute as reliable material evidence through the process of\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.\"\nSimilarly, in the case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJAY JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed , appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

condone the delay of 20 days in preferring cross objections before us and the same is admitted herein for adjudication. 2.1. The ground raised by the assesee in his cross objection is as below:- That the CIT(Appeals) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case should have held that the assessment is barred by limitation of time

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

section 142(2)\nmandates any such material adverse to the facts of assessee\ncollected by AO u/s 142(1) has to be necessarily put to the assessee\nu/s 142(3) before utilizing the same for assessment so as to\nconstitute as reliable material evidence through the process of\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.\"\nSimilarly, in the case

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

section 142(2)\nmandates any such material adverse to the facts of assessee\ncollected by AO u/s 142(1) has to be necessarily put to the assessee\nu/s 142(3) before utilizing the same for assessment so as to\nconstitute as reliable material evidence through the process of\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.\"\nSimilarly, in the case

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

section 142(2)\nmandates any such material adverse to the facts of assessee\ncollected by AO u/s 142(1) has to be necessarily put to the assessee\nu/s 142(3) before utilizing the same for assessment so as to\nconstitute as reliable material evidence through the process of\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.\"\nSimilarly, in the case