TATA METALIKS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1 to sec.115JB specifically provides that the amount of income to which any of the provisions of section 10 (other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof) is to be reduced from the Net profit, if they are credited to the Profit and Loss account. The logic of these provisions, in our view, is that an item of receipt

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA METALIKS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1 to sec.115JB specifically provides that the amount of income to which any of the provisions of section 10 (other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof) is to be reduced from the Net profit, if they are credited to the Profit and Loss account. The logic of these provisions, in our view, is that an item of receipt

M/S SIKAR ZILLA WELFARE TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Sikar Zilla Welfare Income Tax Officer, Trust Ward 1(3), Exempt 1A, Sikar Bhawan, Vs. Ashutosh Dey Lane, Kolkata-400071 Kolkata-700006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts3808D Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024

1) of the Act on 22nd August, 2018. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act but CPC denied the exemption because audit report on From10B was e-filed belatedly on 23rd March, 2020, i.e., after filing of income tax return. The assessee also filed a condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) to learned Pr. Chief Commissioner

ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. M/S. ANUBANDH FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. First, we shall take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2390/KOL/2024. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of share capital

JAIDEEP HALWASIYA,INDIA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned the\ndelay of 9 to 11 years in filing appeals by holding that it is a settled\nlegal position that any delay caused on account of legal advice\nreceived or while perusing an abortive remedy should be treated as\nsufficient cause for such delay.\n3.\nAt the time of hearing the Id. Counsel for the assessee pressed\nadditional ground

THE GOODHOPE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(3) (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 253 of the IT Act shall be within sixty days of the date of the service of the appellate order and in the case of the assessee the date of service being the 9th May, 2024, the time limit for filing of appeal has expired on 8th of July, 2024. 3. That the issue of the assessee was exemption

SHIBANI ADDHYA,BONGAON vs. ITO WARD-49(1), 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. 2270/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Shibani Addhya,………..……………………….…Appellant Shimultala, Bongaon, South 24-Parganas-743235, W.B. [Pan:Afypa7101D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, West Bengal Appearances By: Ms. Swatee Baid, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 09, 2025 O R D E R

1 Shibani Addhya 2. The appeal is time barred by 161 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 04.10.2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 161 days mentioning that due to her old age and fully dependent on her son and tax consultant

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

161 ITR 430] and when the Department preferred an appeal against the said order of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, the same was dismissed by Their Lordships by observing that there was no case made out by the Department by submitting that the decision rendered in the case of CIT – vs.- Nirmal Kumar & Company (supra

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

condone the delay and admit the revenue’s appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of revenue is that with regard to the allowance of leave encashment of Rs.1,47,66,197/-. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed

CENTURY ENKA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

condone the delay and admit the revenue’s appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of revenue is that with regard to the allowance of leave encashment of Rs.1,47,66,197/-. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

delay of 38 days which is clearly evident from the condonation letter filed by the Income should be dismissed. 2. In this case the Ld. AO is very much aware that original asst. was completed on the basis of selection of the case under scrutiny as per CASS(Large share premium) which is clearly mentioned on first page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

delay of 38 days which is clearly evident from the condonation letter filed by the Income should be dismissed. 2. In this case the Ld. AO is very much aware that original asst. was completed on the basis of selection of the case under scrutiny as per CASS(Large share premium) which is clearly mentioned on first page

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

161 of 2013 dated 23.12.2013 rendered by Calcutta High Court “The Assessing Officer also disallowed the expenditure under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without first recording that he was not ITA Nos..1146, 1138/Kol/2012-C-AM 8 satisfied with the correctness of the claim as regards the claim that “no expenditure” was made by the assessee. Challenging the order

ANUP NAYAK,RANIGANJ vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraanup Nayak, Commissioner Of Income 161, P.N. Malia Road, Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Vs Raniganj, West Bengal - 713325 (Pan: Adfpn8917M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

161, P.N. Malia Road, Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi Vs Raniganj, West Bengal - 713325 (PAN: ADFPN8917M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2025 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INTEGRATED COAL MINING LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

161 of 2013 dated 23.12.2013 rendered by Calcutta High Court “The Assessing Officer also disallowed the expenditure under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without first recording that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim as regards the claim that “no expenditure” was made by the assessee. Challenging the order of the tribunal, the present

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AAKASH SAREE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No.-1:- Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), KOLKATA vs. A J CAST ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, HOWRAH

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and ground as raised\nunder Rule 27 is allowed

161 days for which the condonation\npetition was filed. After perusing the contents of the application, we find\nthat the delay is attributable to bonafide and genuine reasons. Therefore,\nwe are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n3. The issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of Ld.CIT(A)\npartly deleting the addition