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

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

5\nITC LIMITED; A.Ys.1992-93 & 1993-94\nITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024\nof the substituted section 153 as amended provides that the\nprovisions of this section as they stood immediately before the\ncommencement of the Finance Act, 2016, shall apply to and in relation\nto any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation made\nbefore the 1st day of June

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

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 by earlier

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

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 by earlier

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

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 by earlier

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

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 by earlier

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the sum of Rs.77,70,880/- incurred towards

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the sum of Rs.77,70,880/- incurred towards

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

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. 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

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)

condonation of delay placed on record, we note that assessee has claimed that the impugned order was neither received by the assessee on its registered e-mail ID nor by post. Further, it was also not uploaded in the Income tax E-Portal until 15.03.2023. However, in the Income Tax Portal the date of upload of DIN letter is mentioned

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;

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

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. General ground 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer, (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. TPO”) passed u/s 92 CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred