ACIT, CIRCLE-7.1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 144C(13) of the Act. In our view, therefore, Notification No. 74/2021 is also not applicable to the case at hand. 19. Even if we hold that the Relaxation Act was applicable to petitioner's case as well, still, the extension vide Notification No. 74/2021 is applicable only to cases where the time-limit has already been extended

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 144C(13) of the Act. In our view, therefore, Notification No. 74/2021 is also not applicable to the case at hand. 19. Even if we hold that the Relaxation Act was applicable to petitioner's case as well, still, the extension vide Notification No. 74/2021 is applicable only to cases where the time-limit has already been extended

ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-7(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 144C(13) of the Act. In our view, therefore, Notification No. 74/2021 is also not applicable to the case at hand. 19. Even if we hold that the Relaxation Act was applicable to petitioner's case as well, still, the extension vide Notification No. 74/2021 is applicable only to cases where the time-limit has already been extended

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HI TECH SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 144C(13) of the Act. In our view, therefore, Notification No. 74/2021 is also not applicable to the case at hand. 19. Even if we hold that the Relaxation Act was applicable to petitioner's case as well, still, the extension vide Notification No. 74/2021 is applicable only to cases where the time-limit has already been extended

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both\nthe appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 144C(13) of the Act. In our view, therefore, Notification No.\n74/2021 is also not applicable to the case at hand.\n19. Even if we hold that the Relaxation Act was applicable to petitioner's case as well,\nstill, the extension vide Notification No. 74/2021 is applicable only to cases where the\ntime-limit has already been extended

LINDE INDIA LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Linde India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Boc India Limited) Income Tax, Circle-11(1), “Oxygen House”, P-43, Vs. Kolkata. Taratala Road, Kolkata-700 088, West Bengal. (Pan: Aaacb2528H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 22 April 2022 (communication for DIN issued to the assessee on 8 February 2023) manually without mentioning DIN in its body and the same was passed in complete violation of the Circular bearing no. 19/2019 dated 14 August 2019.” 3. We also note that registry has observed about inordinate delay

MANORAMA DEVI JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury)

144C by the AO is not a procedural lapse which can be corrected under provisions of Section 263. 4. For that the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in passing order u/s 263 in order to rectify the error/mistake committed by the AO which itself was not curable. 5. For that the appellant being in appeal against the order passed

MANORAMA DEVI JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(4), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 612/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Manorama Devi Jaiswal,……………..………Appellant 4, Amartolla Street, Bagri Market, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Achpj3514H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…..Respondent Ward-35(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. Byepass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee mentioning that the assessment order itself is non-est as declared by the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata dated 17.11.2021, and he could not have exercised his revisionary jurisdiction in respect of a null and void

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

Appeal is partly allowed and the CO is dismissed

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in ITA No. 1844/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10;

condonation of the said delay as under: “I, Durgesh Singh, S/o Surendra Singh, residing at Flat No. 508 Shakti apartment sector 15 Part II Gurgaon-122001, do hereby solemnly affirm that; 1. That, I am working as General Manager -Taxation of M/s Bata India Ltd, entrusted by the company to look after the tax matters of the company. 2. That

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Philips India Limited Pcit -2, Kolkata 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, Vs. New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata- 700156. [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri Amal Kamat, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.10.2018 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act By The Ld. Pcit-2, Kolkata Which Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2018 Passed By The Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca & 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Order Bad In Law & On Facts 1.1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Illegal, Invalid & Not Sustainable In Law.

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 30 October 2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on specific issues holding that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, when such order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial. 2 M/s. Philips India Limited A.Y. 2014-15 1.3 That on the facts and circumstances

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 2 I.T.A. No. 384/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mcleod Russel India Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee company is engaged in the cultivation, processing, and sale of tea. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2020-21 on 13.02.2021 declaring a total loss

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम M/S.Pricewater House A.C.I.T,Cir-1(1), Kolkata Coopers Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7 V/S. Block-Ep, Plot-Y 14 Chowringhee Square, Salt Lake City, Sector- Kolkata-700 069. V, Kolkata-700 091. Pan: Aabcp9181H अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Shri Bikash Jain, Ca, Ld.Ar Appellant/Assessee ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Md. Ghyas Uddin, Cit/Ld.Dr Respondent/Department सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 14-06-2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date 27-06 -2022 Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am. This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [ Hereinafter, Referred To As ‘The Act’] By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [ In Short, Hereafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’], Kolkata-1. 2. At The Time Of Hearing The Registry Has Informed That The Present Appeal Is Time Barred By 32 Days. The Assessee 1. Ay 2014-15 Price Water House Coopers P.Ltd

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the order dated 24 March, 2021 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax - 1, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. Pr. CIT') under section

ACIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S COOKSON INDIA (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Cookson India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs Ltd., 10, Old Post Office Kolkata. . Street, Room No. 15A, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabcc1679B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 02/Kol/2022 In Ita No.250/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Cookson India Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 10, Old Post Office Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Street, Room No. 15A, . Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C 2 M/s. Cookson India Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Act by DCIT, Circle-3, Kolkata, dated 23.04.2014. 2. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 54 days in filing the present appeal for which application for condonation

BISWADIP GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLIE - 1(1), I.T.,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex parte order without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that

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

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 LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

144C(15)(b) of the Act and accordingly the ld DRP cannot assume jurisdiction and directed the ld AO to proceed as per law. (xi) The ld AR argued that the entire addition of Rs. 2,43,53,752/- made in the reassessment based on ld TPO’s order , which was passed vide illegal reference, deserves to be deleted

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

144C(15)(b) of the Act and accordingly the ld DRP cannot assume jurisdiction and directed the ld AO to proceed as per law. (xi) The ld AR argued that the entire addition of Rs. 2,43,53,752/- made in the reassessment based on ld TPO’s order , which was passed vide illegal reference, deserves to be deleted

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

144C(15)(b) of the Act and accordingly the ld DRP cannot assume jurisdiction and directed the ld AO to proceed as per law. (xi) The ld AR argued that the entire addition of Rs. 2,43,53,752/- made in the reassessment based on ld TPO’s order , which was passed vide illegal reference, deserves to be deleted