AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

delays are condoned by admitting these appeals for adjudication. ITA No. 1217/KOL/2023 for A.Y. 2015-16 04. The only issue raised and pressed at the time of hearing is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the assessment order, wherein the ld. AO has made the addition of ₹3,14,43,700/- by invoking the provisions of Section

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

delays are condoned by admitting these appeals for adjudication. ITA No. 1217/KOL/2023 for A.Y. 2015-16 04. The only issue raised and pressed at the time of hearing is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the assessment order, wherein the ld. AO has made the addition of ₹3,14,43,700/- by invoking the provisions of Section

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

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. A.Y. 2012-13 04. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the issue raised in ground no.5 to 7, 9 and 10, which are extracted as under: - “5. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. has complied with the direction

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2) (NOW DCIT, CENT.CIR. 4(2)), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. A.Y. 2012-13 04. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the issue raised in ground no.5 to 7, 9 and 10, which are extracted as under: - “5. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. has complied with the direction

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. A.Y. 2012-13 04. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the issue raised in ground no.5 to 7, 9 and 10, which are extracted as under: - “5. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. has complied with the direction

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. A.Y. 2012-13 04. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the issue raised in ground no.5 to 7, 9 and 10, which are extracted as under: - “5. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. has complied with the direction

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

WESTERN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. PCIT - 9, KOLKATA, AAYKAR BHAVAN DAKSHIN

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.04.2021. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 577 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, stating as under: I.T.A. No.: 1202/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Western Commercial Corporation. “We, Western Commercial

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.\n\n4. It was the submission by the Id. AR that the Assessing Officer had\nreceived certain information that the assessee has received\naccommodation entries of Rs.10 lakhs and consequently initiated\nreopening proceedings. It was the submission that the assessee had\nresponded to the reopening proceedings. The Assessing Officer did not\ndispose

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.

3. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 967 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons in the application are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan

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.

Section 5. It was held that when the party has come with a false plea to get rid of the bar of limitation, the court should not encourage such person by condoning the delay and result in the bar of limitation pleaded by the opposite party. The Court, therefore, refused to condone the delay in favour of the party

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

3 revolve around a single issue, namely whether assessee is entitled to accumulate the surplus fund under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act or not. 10. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.03.2017. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under section 143

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

3, the Board,\nin exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby directs\nthat the Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (CCSIT) / Directors General of\nIncome-tax (DGsIT) are authorised to deal with such applications of condonation\nof delay pending before the Board, upon transfer of such applications by the\nBoard, and decide such applications on merits

JYOTI RANJAN ROY REPRESENTED BY LIMITED GUARDIAN SUVAJIT ROY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 50, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

143(3)/263 of the Act dated 25.08.2011 with a delay 18 months due to ailing health. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the said appeal by refusing to condone the delay as the causes/reasons shown by the assessee were not sufficient according to the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee moved to the Tribunal and during the pendency

JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

143(3)/263 of the Act dated 25.08.2011 with a delay 18 months due to ailing health. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the said appeal by refusing to condone the delay as the causes/reasons shown by the assessee were not sufficient according to the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee moved to the Tribunal and during the pendency

MJUNCTION SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

condonation of delay becomes infructuous being premature. 3. Ground nos. 1 and 2 relate to the Ld. CIT(A) not adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised in the appeal against the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 07.12.2019 and instead adjudicating grounds of appeal raised against intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 29.03.2019. 4. Brief facts

ZULU MERCHANDISE (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred