DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

200/- which was imposed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in view of non- compliance to the notices issued under Section 250 of the Act even though non-compliance to various notices was on account of reasonable cause in terms of the provisions of Section 273B

DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

200/- which was imposed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in view of non- compliance to the notices issued under Section 250 of the Act even though non-compliance to various notices was on account of reasonable cause in terms of the provisions of Section 273B

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

ASHOK PRASAD GUPTA,NORTH DINAJPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4),, RAIGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1848/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ashok Prasad Gupta,………………………….…Appellant C/O. Daspara C.S. Shop, Daspara B.O., Chopra, North Dinajpur-733207, W.B. [Pan:Bfepg3955G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-2(4), Raiganj, Income Tax Office, Karnajora, Rajganj-733130, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

200 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who runs a country liquor business. The assessee filed his return of income on 04.01.2017 showing income of Rs.3,97,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under section

SRI DEBASISH ROY CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2279/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-2008) Sri Debasish Roy Chowdhury, Vs. Acit, Circle-52, Kolkata 46E/1, New Ballygunge Road, 2, Gariahat Road(South), Kolkata-39 Kolkata-68 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipr 7212 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Saswati Mitra(Dutta), Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit,Srdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R

section provides that Commissioner (Appeal) may admit an appeal after expiration of the said period if he satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. While it is true, that the power of condoning delay should be exercised in a liberal manner, for that the basic condition, that sufficient cause for delay should

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-12-2017 making additions of Rs.3,55,92,450/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect

SHREYA DEY SARKAR,PUNE, MAHARASHTRA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4),, RAIGANJ, WEST DINAJPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condoned in the interest of justice. 3. FOR THAT the appellant had placed on record all relevant and verifiable documents such as Form 16, Form 12BA, Form 26AS, and TRACES TDS Certificate which clearly substantiated the correct amount of salary income, but the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same. 4. FOR THAT the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred

STARPOINT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) The Learned NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming additions made in the assessment order by passing ex-parte order and without deciding the appeal of merits and hence the order of NFAC may be set-aside

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

SHRI NITYANAND PANDEY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1),, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 22.04.2024 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. I.T.A. No.: 2067/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nityanand Pandey

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

ROMEX DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(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. 1988/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Romex Developers Pvt. Limited,…..…………Appellant 23, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aafcr0812D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Chaudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, total income of the assessee was assessed by the ld. Assessing Officer at Rs.7,41,617/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,417/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 213 days and filed condonation petition. 3. After considering the submissions made

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned. Ground No.1 & 2 – Vide Ground Nos.1 & 2, the assessee has 4. agitated the confirmation of addition of Rs.10,10,774/- made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions to section 43B of the Act for delay in depositing employees contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance. 5. Heard both the sides. At the outset, we note that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries