TAKDAH LINGDING GPSKUS LTD.,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), DARJEELING

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

154 of the Act. The Appellant had preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) against the same and the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by observing thus: “The first notice was issued to the appellant fixing the hearing on 07.12.2015. But none attended on this date. The case was re-fixed through another notice and date of hearing

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condoning the delay though appellant has submitted a reasonable cause of delay of 17 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in fact, there was a delay of only 17 days in filing of appeal as could be seen from Form-35, the date of service of notice of demand was 20.04.2018 and appeal was filed

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

7 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year : 2019-2020 L & T Finance Limited Keeping in mind the above facts, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 13. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of that Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

7 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year : 2019-2020 L & T Finance Limited Keeping in mind the above facts, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 13. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of that Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding

RAMAKRISHNA RAO,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

7. That then Sri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate prepared the appeal papers and finally the same was filed on 15.03.2024 before the Hon'ble Tribunal with a delay of 85 days. 8. That your petitioner prays that in the facts and circumstances stated above, the delay of 85 days in filing appeal before the Ld. Tribunal be condoned and the appeal

CALCUTTA NEW SCHOOL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), EXEMPT, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

7) SCC 123], this Court\nheld:\n\"It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of\nthe court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion\ncan be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay\nis no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion

KARMICK SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4),KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

7. In the light of the above, we are of the view that while making this appeal time barred, the assessee will not give anything. The delay has not been adopted by the assessee as a strategy to litigate with the Revenue. The delay is the result of human lapses and, therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal

BILATIBARI TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD.,ISLAMPUR, NORTH DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI , JALPAIGURI

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

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

7) SCC 123], this Court held: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes

FATHER LEBLOND TRUST,DARJEELING vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.: 1577/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Father Leblond Trust. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the impugned Rectification Order under section 154 in relation to the Intimation

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1220/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Cathay Pacific Airways Limited,…………….…Appellant Room No. 14, 3Rd Floor, New Integrated Cargo Terminal, Nscbi Airport, Kolkata-700052 [Pan:Aabcc5644E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Em Bye-Pass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Sm. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 14, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a non-resident company. The appellant is engaged in the business of operation of aircraft in international traffic. For the year under consideration, the appellant filed the return of income within the prescribed due date declaring total Income of Rs. 1,60,62,140/- and a refund

ITO(EXEMPTION),WARD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH AMIYA MEMORIAL TRUST, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 12(1)(b) of the Act were violated. The Revenue has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. [arising in SLP (Civil) No. 7620/2021] dated 11th July, 2022. The ld. CIT (A) allowed the relief to the assessee and the relevant extract from the order

DCIT CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee company was engaged primarily in the business of cultivation and manufacture of tea, company filed return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs. 36,48,96,214/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny, notices

DAROGA FAMILY FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

154 of the Act it has been found suo moto that Form-10B has not been filed hence, exemption has been denied. The contention of ld. Counsel for the assessee is that when he got notice to file the non-submission of Form-10B, he immediately filed it on 02.07.2022 as according to him that order dated 27.03.2023 rejecting

PRITPAL SINGH BASAN,JAMSHEDPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - APPEALS, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 154 of the Act but has not been decided, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication on merits. Page 4 of 11 I.T.A. Nos.: 957 & 1003/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

PRITPAL SINGH BASAN,JHARKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEAL), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 154 of the Act but has not been decided, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication on merits. Page 4 of 11 I.T.A. Nos.: 957 & 1003/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

MIHIJAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

154 of the Act and only upon rejection of the same, they decided to file the appeal. the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that filing a rectification application does not extend the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal under section 249(2) of the Act and it is also a settled principle that legal remedies or strategic

MA SHANTI AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,,BIRBHUM vs. ACIT, CC 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing Form-10IC was duly condoned by CBDT vide circular no, 19-2023. the assessee is in appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. 7. However, the CPC has duly rectified the intimation dt. 13.11.2022 u.s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 by computing the tax liability at the rates specified in Section

ARUNESWAR MUKHOPADHYAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1057/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Aruneswar Mukhopadhyay,……………….……Appellant 64, Rajni Mukherjee Road, Sahapur, Kolkata-700038, West Bengal [Pan:Adspm1879J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..Respondent Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 14, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a non-resident for the year under consideration. The assessee acquired an immovable property during the year under consideration. The fair market value of the immovable property purchased by the assessee is higher by Rs.5,15,326/- from the consideration given by the assesee. Hence, a show-cause