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

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

3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order for assessment or re-assessment under the Act and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof expires on 30th June 2021 due to its extension by earlier notifications, such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th September 2021. There

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

3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order for assessment or re-assessment under the Act and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof expires on 30th June 2021 due to its extension by earlier notifications, such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th September 2021. There

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

3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order for assessment or re-assessment under the Act and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof expires on 30th June 2021 due to its extension by earlier notifications, such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th September 2021. There

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

3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order for assessment or re-assessment under the Act and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof expires on 30th June 2021 due to its extension by earlier notifications, such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th September 2021. There

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

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

3 of the\nRelaxation Act, relates to passing of an order for assessment or re-assessment under\nthe Act and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section\n153B thereof expires on 30th June 2021 due to its extension by earlier notifications,\nsuch time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th September 2021. There

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. WACKER METROARK CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward-11(2), Kolkata………..........…….…….....…....Appellant Vs. M/S. Wacker Metroark Chemicals Private Limited.................................……………..…......Respondent Block-Bn, Plot-7 Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aaacw 2192 G] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri R.N. Dutt, Advocate & Ms. Sutapa Roy Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 25Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 11Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 26/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 1 (One) Day In Filing Of This Appeal By The Revenue. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Department Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of fertilizers, chemicals and paints. The assessee company filed its return of income on 29/11/2013 and later revised the same on 24/03/2014, disclosing total income of Rs.67,30,75,140/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

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;

section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act, by the deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Circle 2(1), Kolkata. 4. That, I.T. Dept has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in ITA No. 1844/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10; 5. The said appeal has been preferred by the 1.1. Dept, against

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.

condoned the such delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 332,65,58,690/- and order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30.10.2018 by which total

M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

144C(3) read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 14.02.2017. 2. This appeal by the assessee has been filed challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) who had dismissed the appeal in limine on technical ground without adjudicating on the merits of the case seeking restoration of the matter

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

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

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 391 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

3. It is also to be recorded that aggrieved by my adjudication on the impugned\nissue for the A.Y 2010-11 & 2011-12, Revenue had moved the matter before the\nHon'ble ITAT, and the Hon'ble ITAT by their orders and adjudication at\nParagraphs 4,5,6,7 and 8 have confirmed my findings. Therefore, following my\nfindings

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

3 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in restricting the\naddition of ₹51,48,540/- being expenses incurred on exempt income,\nwhile computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act and directing the Ld.\nAO to restrict the addition in terms of clause (f) contained in the\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

3 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in restricting the\naddition of ₹51,48,540/- being expenses incurred on exempt income,\nwhile computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act and directing the Ld.\nAO to restrict the addition in terms of clause (f) contained in the\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

3 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in restricting the\naddition of ₹51,48,540/- being expenses incurred on exempt income,\nwhile computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act and directing the Ld.\nAO to restrict the addition in terms of clause (f) contained in the\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB

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)

condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee appraised the Bench that at para 2 of the Pr. CIT’s order it is stated that before completion of the final assessment a draft assessment order should have been served on the assessee as per the mandatory provision