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

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 |

delay is hereby condoned and the Revenue’s appeal is also admitted for adjudication along with the assessee’s. I

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 |

delay is hereby condoned and the Revenue’s appeal is also admitted for adjudication along with the assessee’s. I

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

JIYA EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay is for reasonable\ncause and is accordingly, condoned.\n3. The issues raised in Ground No. 1 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)\nsetting aside the assessment to the file of the AO instead of quashing re-\nopening of assessment as the approval u/s 151 of the Act is mechanical\nin nature and not in accordance with

SUDHA SURANA,NEW DELHI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito Ward-61(3) Bamboo Villa, Sudha Surana Central Revenue Building, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Vs. New Delhi-110085 Kolkata-700014, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adepb5526F Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 05. The legal issue raised by the assessee is against the invalid reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act without any application of mind and without there being a proper approval of the competent authority. 06. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee raised the following grounds which is extracted below: “1. That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law as well as in facts

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 11. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. Commissioner has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and setting aside the second reassessment order dated 30.09.2019. Before adverting to the show-cause notice issued under section 263, we deem it appropriate to take

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CER-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 11. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. Commissioner has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and setting aside the second reassessment order dated 30.09.2019. Before adverting to the show-cause notice issued under section 263, we deem it appropriate to take

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3.\nThe issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the order\nof Id. CIT (A) annulling the assessment framed u/s 147 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Id. AO on the ground of being\ninvalid and void ab initio without considering the facts

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

NAVNIRMAN INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 337 days\nand admit the appeal for adjudication.\n5. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee Company had fled its\nreturn of total income for the assessment year declaring loss of Rs.35,435/-.\nThe return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act.\nSubsequently, it was found that the assessee company

M/S PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. In view of the above, we decided to proceed and to adjudicate the matter on the basis of materials available on record. The assessee in Ground Nos.1 & 2 has challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 5. Briefly stated

KALYANI KOLEY,HOWRAH vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and admit the case for adjudication. 2. This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) dated 01.11.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]. 4 Kalyani Koley 2.1 The main issue revolves around a claim

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), 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. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that information received from the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Kolkata revealed regarding accommodation entries of bogus LTCG/STCG/Business Loss booked by the assessee by trading in penny stock of Blue Print Securities Limited. As per information received, the entities involved in eh transaction are the syndicate members, the brokers, the entry operators

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. ITA No. 937/K/18 ITA No. 938/K/18 ITA No. 1439/K/18 A.Y 2010­11 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd 3 6. We shall take summarized and concise ground No.1, which reads as follows: (1). Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 937/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11 and Ground

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. ITA No. 937/K/18 ITA No. 938/K/18 ITA No. 1439/K/18 A.Y 2010­11 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd 3 6. We shall take summarized and concise ground No.1, which reads as follows: (1). Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 937/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11 and Ground

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal. 3. As the facts and circumstances are exactly identical in all the appeals of the assessee, hence we take ITA No. 2468/KOL/2024 and decide the issue accordingly. 4. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the ground no.5 which is extracted below:- “FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner