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

Section 144 of the Act dated 20th February, 2023 without considering the petition for condonation of delay of 157 days

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

Section 144 of the Act dated 20th February, 2023 without considering the petition for condonation of delay of 157 days

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

Section 144 of the Act dated 20th February, 2023 without considering the petition for condonation of delay of 157 days

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1) NOW I.T.O., WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) and ITA No. 500/Kol/2025 pertains to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In both of these appeals there is a delay of 677 days, which has been requested to be condoned. For the sake of convenience, an affidavit filed for ITA No. 499/Kol/2025 is extracted for reference: (successor

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA CURRENTLY ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) and ITA No. 500/Kol/2025 pertains to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In both of these appeals there is a delay of 677 days, which has been requested to be condoned. For the sake of convenience, an affidavit filed for ITA No. 499/Kol/2025 is extracted for reference: (successor

SANTANU DAS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-25(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was completed on 27.09.2022 determining the total assessed income at Rs. 1,00,36,850/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was delayed by 134 days. The reason seeking condonation of delay was that the assessee had relied on the statement of his Chartered

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

M/S ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIR-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

M/S. JSIS IRON & STEEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-XXIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesese being ITA No

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

144 read with section 263 after paying the appeal fees of Rs.1,000/-. Since there was a delay in filing the said appeal, an application seeking condonation

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,ALIPORE, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD- 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's prayer for condonation of delay, which was based on wrong interpretation of date of service or communication of the Order and thereby in non-admitting the Appeal and denying justice to the Appellant

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,ALIPORE, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's prayer for condonation of delay, which was based on wrong interpretation of date of service or communication of the Order and thereby in non-admitting the Appeal and denying justice to the Appellant

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,ALIPORE, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's prayer for condonation of delay, which was based on wrong interpretation of date of service or communication of the Order and thereby in non-admitting the Appeal and denying justice to the Appellant

PRESTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT 5(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 of the Act, dated 23.05.2023. I.T.A. No.: 802/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Prestar Infrastructure Projects Ltd. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “1. The present appeal under section

ICI INDIA MANAGEMENT STAFF GRATUITY FUND,HARYANA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1507/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ici India Limited Employees Gratuity Fund,……………………………………….Appellant Magnum Tower, 9Th Floor, Golf Course, Extension Road, Sector-58, Gurgaon-122011, Haryana [Pan:Aaati3857K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Circle-33, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 & I.T.A. No. 1508/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ici India Management Staff Gratuity Fund,……………………………………….Appellant Magnum Tower, 9Th Floor, Golf Course, Extension Road, Sector-58, Gurgaon-122011, Haryana [Pan:Aaati4659R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Circle-33, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 9. In both the appeals, the assessee has taken three grounds of appeal and their common grievance in their respective appeals is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer vide which benefit of section 10(25(iv) was denied to each