VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble, Kz & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2012-13 Vasupujya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd……...…...........................................................……………….…......Appellant 35, C.R. Avenue Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Aaacv 8958 M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2) Kolkata……….....................……........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, F.C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Imokaba Jamir, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 10Th, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp, Kz:-

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessing Officer, therefore, invoked Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’) and worked out the expenses incurred in relation to the earning of exempt income at Rs.1,41,36,211/-. He, however, restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of business expenses/loss claimed

DEEPAK SWITCH GEARS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. I.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd 6. The brief facts of the case are that as noted from the order of the ld. Pr. CIT are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under

INVESCO FINANCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble, Kz & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2012-13 Invesco Finance Pvt. Ltd………………...…...........................................................……………….…......Appellant 35, C.R. Avenue Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Aaacv 8958 M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2) Kolkata……….....................……........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, F.C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Imokaba Jamir, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 10Th, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp, Kz:-

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessing Officer, therefore, invoked Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’) and worked out the expenses incurred in relation to the exempt income at Rs.76,24,666/-. He, however, restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of expenses actually incurred by the assessee

BHARAT TIRTHA RICE MILL,BURDWAN EAST vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 10. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment order for passing a fresh assessment order. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed

RIDDHI SEVA KENDRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), EXEMPT, , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrariddhi Seva Kendra, Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru, C/O Subas Agarwal & Ito, Ward-1(1), Exempt, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Kolkata Income Tax Office, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Vs 10B, Middleton Road, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata - 700071 Kolkata - 700069 (Pan: Aaatr2893Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoning delay in filing appeal before him though there was a reasonable cause for the delay. 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and disposed of the same on merit adjudicating various grounds of appeal taken before him. 3. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances

ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. INDIAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

198 ITR 511 dated 14.06.1991] CBDT has issued Circular No. 2/2020 dated 03.01.2020 authorizing CIT to decide on the issue of condonation of 2 AY: 2018-19 Indian Sugar Mills Association delay in filing Form 10B and therefore order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC is in contravention to the provisions of the Act and in violation 3. For that

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

ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

condon the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. M/s Height Insurance Services Ltd. Assessment Year:2009-10 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows: 1. “In the facts and in the circumstances and on points of law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO highlighted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUBLIME AGRO LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay of two hundred thirty seven days in filing appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) due non-availability of assessment record and malfunctioning of copying machine which may kindly condoned. ii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-22 has erred

DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S RAV DRAVYA PVT LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenues is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 103/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Rav Dravya Private Limited Tax, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Hastings Chambers, 2Nd Floor Vs 7/C, Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aabcr3154Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Md. Ghayasuddin, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/03/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. This Revenue’S Appeal Is Time Barred By 198 Days & The Petition Seeking Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Stating That The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal Was Attributable To The Restrictions Imposed Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That There Is Reasonable Cause For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal On Time. Hence We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

198 days and the petition seeking condonation of delay has been filed stating that the delay in filing of this appeal was attributable to the restrictions imposed due to Covid-19 pandemic. We have heard both the sides and find that there is reasonable cause for delay in filing of the appeal on time. Hence we condone the delay

ANINDITA STEELS LTD.,JHARKHAND vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, is bad in law for the following reasons:- a) The assessment was reopened after verifying unsecured loans of Rs. 1.74 Crores, received by the assessee from various companies and the Assessing Officer after examining this

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BRGD SPONGE & IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal\nof the assessee is allowed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3.\nThe common issue raised in all the grounds raised by the Revenue is\nagainst the order of Id. CIT (A) partly deleting the addition to the\nextent of ₹2,18,15,000/- as made by the Id. AO of ₹2,30,00,000/-\nu/s 68 of the Act in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee an Investment Company with investments in various unlisted manufacturing companies. During the relevant Financial Year, share applications amounting to Rs. 8,75,00,000/- were received from various share applicants to whom equity share allotted

SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 33(5), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1813/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shyamal Kumar Ghosh……………………………………………….…..……Appellant 40, Weston Street, 2Nd Floor, Bowbazar, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Adtpg3720F] Vs. Ito, Ward-33(5), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 09, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2023 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’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Raised Issue Of A Delay Of 198 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Gross Total Income Of Rs.14,15,352/- & Total Income Of Rs.12,49,520/- After Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A Of The Act. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response, The Assessee Submitted Profit & Loss A/C, Balance Sheet And

198 days in filing the instant appeal. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay citing valid and proper reasons. After considering the averments made in the application, we condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 by declaring gross total income

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

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

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. A.Y. 2012-13 04. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the issue raised in ground no.5 to 7, 9 and 10, which are extracted as under: - “5. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. has complied with the direction

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

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

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. A.Y. 2012-13 04. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the issue raised in ground no.5 to 7, 9 and 10, which are extracted as under: - “5. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. has complied with the direction

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2) (NOW DCIT, CENT.CIR. 4(2)), KOLKATA

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

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

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. A.Y. 2012-13 04. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the issue raised in ground no.5 to 7, 9 and 10, which are extracted as under: - “5. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. has complied with the direction

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

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

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. A.Y. 2012-13 04. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the issue raised in ground no.5 to 7, 9 and 10, which are extracted as under: - “5. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. has complied with the direction