M/S. SHERA ELECTRIC CO., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 33(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 186/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shera Electric Co. .................................……………………………………….................Appellant 47, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan: Aamfs 3071 R] Ito, Ward 33(4) Kolkata...................……………………………………………..................Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri D.C. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 29, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 9, Kolkata Dated 25.10.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 10,34,160/- Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 4 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of The Said Delay & Keeping In View The Reasons Given Therein, I Am Satisfied That There Is A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 4 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Learned Dr Has Also Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. The Said Delay Is Accordingly Condoned.

delay is accordingly condoned. 2 I.T.A. No. 186/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Shera Electric Co. 3. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of execution of works contract. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 30.11.2014 declaring a total income

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

condone the delay and admit the appeal for regular hearing. 3. The brief facts arising in this case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 24.09.2009 declaring loss of Rs.30,97,3290/-. Notices u/s 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee and as and when called

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. CENTURY ALUMINIUM MFG COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-13(1), Kolkata……….……………… …………….……….……Appellant Vs. Century Aluminium Mfg Company Ltd..…….………….......……...…..…..Respondent Raja Road, P.O. Sukchar, Barrackpur-Ii, 24 Parganas, W.B-700115.. [Pan: Aabcc2200Q] Appearances By: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 25 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition 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. Century Aluminium Mfg Company Ltd

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 25 days. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we find

SUBHAG MERCANTILE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WD-59(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2004-05

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. Only issue raised by assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer by sustaining the disallowance of ₹3,76,566/- including the interest of ₹1,25,522/- on account of non-deduction of TDS on interest u/s.194-A

THE MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 459 & 460/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Murshidabad District Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, (Tds), Cir-1, Kolkata Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 48 & 49, B.B. Sen Road Berhampore – 742101 (Murshidabad) [Pan : Aabat2105M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 16/03/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighty Seven (87) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. On Perusal Of The Grounds, We Find That The Common Issue For Our Consideration Is That Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Of Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source U/S 194A Of The

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. On perusal of the grounds, we find that the common issue for our consideration is that whether the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of the ld. Assessing Officer of treating the assessee in default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction

THE MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 459 & 460/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Murshidabad District Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, (Tds), Cir-1, Kolkata Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 48 & 49, B.B. Sen Road Berhampore – 742101 (Murshidabad) [Pan : Aabat2105M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 16/03/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighty Seven (87) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. On Perusal Of The Grounds, We Find That The Common Issue For Our Consideration Is That Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Of Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source U/S 194A Of The

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. On perusal of the grounds, we find that the common issue for our consideration is that whether the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of the ld. Assessing Officer of treating the assessee in default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction

DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE 2(3), KOLKATA vs. LUMINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MERLIN ACROPOLIS, E.K.T.

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. Lumino Industries Ltd……………………............…..….…..….......……...…..…..Respondent Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] C.O No.57/Kol/2025 (In I.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lumino Industries Ltd.......................................................................……….…Cross-Objector Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata ……………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objections D By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Ay 2014-15. 02. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By 7 Days By The Revenue, For Which, Condonation Petition Has Been Filed. After Hearing Both The Parties & Perusing The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed By The Revenue, We Are Of The View That The

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 03. First take up the Revenue’s appeal wherein the common issue raised in the grounds of appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.7,75,00,000/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the ld. AO on account of bogus unsecured loans

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA vs. EDMOND FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1) Whether on facts of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee’s appeal in respect of addition of unsecured loans made u/s 68 of the Act along with disallowance of corresponding

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 37(1) as it was contingent in nature. The Ld. AO in support of the impugned disallowance relied on CBDT's Instruction No. 3/2010 dated 28.09.2010 which inter alia provided that losses on forex derivatives accounted on the basis of exchange rate prevailing on the balance sheet date was notional in nature and therefore not allowable in computing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 37(1) as it was contingent in nature. The Ld. AO in support of the impugned disallowance relied on CBDT's Instruction No. 3/2010 dated 28.09.2010 which inter alia provided that losses on forex derivatives accounted on the basis of exchange rate prevailing on the balance sheet date was notional in nature and therefore not allowable in computing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 37(1) as it was contingent in nature. The Ld. AO in support of the impugned disallowance relied on CBDT's Instruction No. 3/2010 dated 28.09.2010 which inter alia provided that losses on forex derivatives accounted on the basis of exchange rate prevailing on the balance sheet date was notional in nature and therefore not allowable in computing