SURENDRA KUMAR MITTAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.563/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Surendra Kumar Mittal Vs. Ito, Ward – 45(2), Kolkata

condonation of delay, but Pr. CIT, vide order No.173 of 2015-16, dated 10.03.2016 has rejected the petition on the ground of inordinate delay without any valid reason. Therefore, the assessee`s claim for lorry hire charges for Rs.1,22,84,875/- was disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. We note that during the course

BIKASH KUMAR MONDAL,ARAMBAGH vs. ITO WARD 1(4) HOOGHLY, CHINSURA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietary concern and running his business of marble and granite under the name and style of M/s. Shivam Marble. During the assessment year, the assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs.8

ARYA ROADWAYS CO.PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA [NEW ITO, WARD - 12(1), KOLKATA], KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2010-11 Arya Roadways Co Pvt V/S. Ito Ward-3(3), [New Ltd., Tivoli Court, Block-B, Ito Ward-12(1)] Aayakar Bhavana, 7Th Flat-93, 1C, Ballygunge Circular Road, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 019 Square, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaeca 9139 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Brijesh Kr. Singh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Singh, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata’S Order Dated 21.02.2017 Passed In Case No.385/Cit(A)-15/15-16/3(3)/R&T/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Sides. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Two Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal. It Firstly Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing / Adding Its Freight Charges Of ₹11,68,46,218/- As Well As Loading / Unloading Charges Of ₹10,87,385/- Paid To Various Parties On

condone the delay in sending ITRV. In my opinion, online return filing is complete only when verification regarding filing of online return is sent to CPC, in the Form of ITRV. Non-receipt of ITRV makes the online return non-est. Thus R.M. Logistics (Prop: Saswata Nayak), in effect, has not filed any return and situation in his case

TAPAN KUMAR DUTTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

delay of 81 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is, therefore, condoned and this appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merit. 1 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Tapan Kumar Dutta 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal:- “(1)(a) For that

ITO(TDS),WD-58(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PACEMAN SALES PROMOTION PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 201(1A) affording the added alternative support as to no liability of payment of TDS U/s 194C and payment of interest thereon. ITA No. 1296/Kol/2012 & 10 & CO No.12/Kol/2013 C-AM M/s.Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd We find that there is delay in filing cross objections by the assessee by 42 days which is condoned

KANOI TEA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. MALA BANERJEE, BARRACKPORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3 I.T.A. No. 152/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mala Banerjee 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee being an individual engaged in the business under the name and style of M/s Banerjee Enterprises that of civil construction of dwelling houses, industrial sheds, cutting and construction of drains. The assessee filed

SHRI DILIP KUMAR NATHANY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

condone the impugned delay of 46 days in filing the instant appeal. The main case is now taken up on merits. 3. The assessee appears to have raised five substantive grounds in the instant appeal i.e. disallowance of carriage inward expanse of ₹28,25,511/-, whole of lifting ITA No. 1798/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 Sh D.K. Nathany

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NARIMAN FINVEST (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and that of assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. First we take up Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1614/Kol/11 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer for ₹33,60,261/- as speculation loss. 4. Brief facts are that assessee is a Private Limited Company

M/S CARGO HINDLING CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-28(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

194C of the Act. Aggrieved by this addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but with a delay of 8 days. The explanation offered by the assessee for such delay is that one Soumen Ghosh who has been looking after the matter of the assessee suddenly fell ill on and from 20.01.2010 and could

SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI,MURSHIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT)-14, SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Kolkata, for the assessment year 2010-11. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows. (1) That

SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.1111/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sri Anil Kumar Jain -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xx, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Acfpj0712R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 4. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.10,400/- which was rents payable by the assessee for the period prior to the previous year relevant to A.Y.2009-10. It was the plea of the assessee that the assessee was a tenant of the premises at 23A, Kalakar

AC CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condoning the delay. 3. Issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 are general in nature and does not need any specific adjudication. 2 I.T.A. No.374/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2007-08 AC Construction 4. Issue raised in ground no. 3 and 4 are not pressed at the time of hearing. Accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 5. Issue raised in ground

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

condone the delay and admit these appeal. 4. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of Ground Engineering, Civil & Structural works, building of power plants, construction of roads and highways etc. and trading in goods. For the Assessment Year 2005- 06, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2005, declaring ‘Nil’ income

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

condone the delay and admit these appeal. 4. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of Ground Engineering, Civil & Structural works, building of power plants, construction of roads and highways etc. and trading in goods. For the Assessment Year 2005- 06, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2005, declaring ‘Nil’ income

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

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 3. We first take the appeal of the revenue for the Assessment Year

D.C.I.T CIR - 3(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 3. We first take the appeal of the revenue for the Assessment Year

I.T.O WD - 2(2),HOOGHLY., HOOGHLY vs. RATNA MUKHERJEE ( L/H OF LATE KAMAL MUKHERJEE), DURGAPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2006-07

condone the delay and proceed to hearing the appeal. 3. Solitary interconnected issue raised by Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer for ₹89,64,419/- on account of non deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS for short) u/s 194C(2) r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Facts

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

194C and 194J of the Act in contravention of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia)(B) of the Act." 2 M/s.Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 Ground No.19 : "That the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds of appeal, if any, at or before the time of hearing and/or alter, modify, reframe any grounds of appeal