PRAMOD LAKRA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

148A(d) and notice U/s148, as well as collecting and arranging the required documents/files for the 2nd appeal. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay of 101 days in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata for the sake of substantial justice.” 1.2 Considering the contents of the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned

URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

148A(d) and notice U/s148, as well as collecting and arranging the required documents/files for the 2nd appeal. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay of 101 days in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata for the sake of substantial justice.” 1.2 Considering the contents of the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. SHIVRASHI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is hereby treated as allowed

delay is hereby condoned.\n3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income “Nil”. The return was duly processed and an order was passed u/s 143(3) assessing total income of Rs.16,010/- with income tax liabilities of Rs.4,950/-. The case

ANUPAMA VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Anupama Vintrade Pvt. Ltd..….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 77, 4Th Floor, Room 422, Elliot Road, Kol-700016.. [Pan: Aahca5675R] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.03.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 14 Days. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee being a domestica company filed its return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on Anupama Vintrade Pvt. Ltd 11.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.23,32,310/-. The said

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

condoning the delay is liable to be quashed and/or set aside. III. FOR THAT the appellant being a very senior citizen suffering from various deceases including on account of the fact that the appellant was required to travel to Hyderabad in connection with eye operation of his wife and the said fact was duly submitted before the first Appellate Authority

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

condoning the delay is liable to be quashed and/or set aside. III. FOR THAT the appellant being a very senior citizen suffering from various deceases including on account of the fact that the appellant was required to travel to Hyderabad in connection with eye operation of his wife and the said fact was duly submitted before the first Appellate Authority

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

condoning the delay is liable to be quashed and/or set aside. III. FOR THAT the appellant being a very senior citizen suffering from various deceases including on account of the fact that the appellant was required to travel to Hyderabad in connection with eye operation of his wife and the said fact was duly submitted before the first Appellate Authority

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

condonation application and dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay in filing, without considering the genuine and unavoidable reasons cited by the appellant, that the delay was not intentional, and that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. 3. Because on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ALEX TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [Pan: Aajca6146P] Appearances By: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 05.08.2024 & 26.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue With Delays Of 38 Days. The Revenue Has Filed Separate Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid And

delays in filing both the appeals are hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 3. ITA No.2197/Kol/2024 for Assessment Year 2013-14 – For the sake of convenience and narrations of facts, this appeal is taken as lead case. 4. At the time of argument, the ld. counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee raised

ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ALEX TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [Pan: Aajca6146P] Appearances By: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 05.08.2024 & 26.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue With Delays Of 38 Days. The Revenue Has Filed Separate Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid And

delays in filing both the appeals are hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 3. ITA No.2197/Kol/2024 for Assessment Year 2013-14 – For the sake of convenience and narrations of facts, this appeal is taken as lead case. 4. At the time of argument, the ld. counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee raised

SHYAM GREENFIELD DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Admittedly, there is a delay of 88 days in filing of appeal against the order passed u/s 250 of the Act. In this connection, it is submitted that the concerned person in-charge of the income-tax matter of the assessee company

EKTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The issue raised in Ground No. 2 is against the invalid notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act giving less than 7 days to comply the notice and therefore, the same is bad in law and so is consequent assessment framed by the AO. 4. The facts in brief

SRI NIKHIL MAHESWARI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Sri Nikhil Maheswari Bf-250, 2Nd Floor, Sector-1, Ito Ward 50(1) Central Circle-Block, Uttrapan Complex, Manicktalla Baisakhi Island Sali, Salt Lake, Civil Centre, Ultadanga, Kolkata- Vs. Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700064, 700054, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bbzpm1050R Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pampa Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the following paras. Sri Nikhil Maheswari; A.Y. 2010-11 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income, declaring total income of ₹19,00,140/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, specific information as flagged as per insight portal that the assessee

ANIL SINGH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.531/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Anil Singh Vs Ito Ward-49(1), Kolkata/Nfac 4, Railway Gate, Lalkuthi, Kamarhati, Kolkata Pan No. : Bflps 0954 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Jcit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 168 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr.Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That This Is A Case Of Reopening & Issuance Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Notice

delay of 168 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that this is a case of reopening and issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. It was the submission that the notice 2 u/s.148A(b) of the Act came

UMANG WEBTECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the In this case the assessee filed its original return of income for the subject AY on 24.12.2010. Subsequently, a piece of information was received from the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-3(l), Kolkata, vide his letter No. DDIT(lnv)/Kol/X-181/Report/2016-17/6693

RAJU SAHA,BARASAT, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS NORTH vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 61,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2056/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raju Saha,……………………………….……...……Appellant Swapanapuri, Duttapukur Hatkhola, Barasat, 24-Parganas (N), Kolkata-743248, West Bengal [Pan:Awops1579E] -Vs.- Dcit/Acit,…………………………………….……..Respondent Circle-61, Kolkata, Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014

delay is condoned. 3. Facts in brief are that the appellant-assessee made substantial financial transactions in the form of receipt of salary income i.e. amounting to Rs.63,81,187/- received from Reliance Telecom Ltd., Ticker Plant Ltd., Vodafone Mobuile Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd., which is above the basic exemption chargeable to tax as salaried employee. On the basis

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANMUKH VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Sanmukh Vincom Private Kolkata Limited 5Th Floor, Room No.5/12/2B, 15-2-380/382, Landmark Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Shop No.3, Siddiamber Bazar, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Hyderabad, Telangana-500012, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs9735Q Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹4,88,00,000/- as made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3.1. The facts in brief

JCIT (IN-SITU), CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TEZAS TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both, the appeal of revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The Assessing Officer in this appeal had made the impugned additions in an assessment carried out u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 26.05.2023 to the tune of Rs.22,00,15,923/- by treating the commodity trading transactions done by the assessee as bogus and thereby made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIDDHESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No.2550 /KOL/2025 & CO 2/Kol/2026 3. The Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of unsubstantiated loss on stock option of ₹1,22,73,405/-, unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of ₹2,45,478/-, unsubstantiated loss