KIRTI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. CPC TAX OFFICER WARD OFFICER 40(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.24/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merit. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the TDS has been deducted by the employer and assessee should get the credit as per section 199

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PROFICIENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

condone the delay and admit the cross objection of the assessee for hearing. M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1346/Kol/2016&C. O. No. 2016&C. O. No. 36/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: Assessment Year:2012-13 6. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for . At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S IMPEX FERRO TECH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.CI.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1521/KOL/2019: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,22,53,107/- by recording a finding that

D.CI.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S IMPEX FERRO TECH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1521/KOL/2019: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,22,53,107/- by recording a finding that

THE EXECUTOR TO THE ESTATE OF SUKHENDU PRASAD CHOUDHURY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of substantive justice. 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer, CPC (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') is seen to have issued an intimation order dated 22.03.2023 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), in which TDS claim of Rs. 71,583/- was not granted ostensibly because

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIESLIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as being infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the feats and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 4,74,22,91l/- (3,94,98,436 +7924473) made

MANAV KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

199 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard. The said delay is accordingly condoned and this appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merit. 1 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Manav Kumar Saraf 3. The grounds raised by the assessee

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

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay of 28 days in filing the\npresent appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for\nhearing.\n4. It was submitted by the Id. AR that as per the AO, the assessee had\nmade investments in allegedly three penny stock companies, namely, JMD\nTelefilms Industries Limited, Unisys Softwares & Holding Industries Ltd.\nand Nouveau Global Ventures Limited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Accordingly the ground No. 2 is dismissed by upholding the order of Ld

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 4(3) Avima Exports Private Limited 4Th Ns Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata, 110, Shantipally, Vs. Kolkata-700107, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca5857N Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

delay of filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 03. The issue in Ground No. 1 by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 8,48,75,000/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act. AVIM Exports Private Limited

ITO, WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SARGA HOTEL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 664/KOL/2023: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) Delhi is erred in not considering disallowance made by the AO on account of business expenditure

I.T.O, WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SARGA HOTEL PVT. LTD. , SALT LAKE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed\nas infructuous

delay\nis condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.\n2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\ni. ITA No. 664/KOL/2023:\n“1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) Delhi\nis erred in not considering disallowance made by the AO on account of\nbusiness

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

condoned the delay. The one more factor, which was available before the Tribunal was that impugned order was open for debate and it is just a Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The rights in the hands of the appellant have not been crystallized. Therefore, the Tribunal made an elaborate discussion and held that such an order be termed

LEMONGRASS DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

199-200 of PB ,we note that the delay was attributable to the fact that the Advocate Mr. R. Agarwal who was looking after the taxation matter who also attended the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). He was not aware of the system of filing the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, he has not given any advice

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial