M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2008. Subsequently the 2 M/s Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. assessee company filed its revised return of income on 9-12-2008 showing total loss at Rs.3

ADIT(IT),3(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VAN OORD ATLANTA B. V., GOA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Adit(It)-3(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Van Oord Atlanta B.V Aayakar Bhawan Poorva Room 210, 110, C/O P P Mahatme & Co. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Gabmer Apartments Vasco Da Gama, Goa – 403802. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv 9191 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant By : Shri N. B. Som, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Revenue By : Mrs. Urmila Ajay Maheshwari, C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/11/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2003-04, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, In Appeal No.50A/Cit(A)-Xl/Kol Dated 28.11.2008, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 10.03.2006. 2. The Grievances Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:

210, 110, C/o P P Mahatme & Co. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Gabmer Apartments Vasco Da Gama, Goa – 403802. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCV 9191 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri N. B. Som, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Revenue by : Mrs. Urmila Ajay Maheshwari, C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 23/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार

ASHOK CHAURASIA,PARBATIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HALDIA

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Assessing Officer has taken income on excess deposit as income i.e. (2,22,81,659-1,83,02,190)-Rs.39,52,944 during the Previous year where the assessee

BIMAL KUMAR SIKARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Bimal Kumar Sikaria Vs. Acit, Circle-40, Kolkata 159, Ramdular Sarkar Street, Kolkata – 700006. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aurps0380C (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not want to press Ground No.3, therefore we dismiss Ground No.3 raised by the assessee as not pressed. 5. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee relates to addition of Rs.45,00,000/- as undisclosed income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay. However, considerable time has passed since the new system of National Faceless Appeal Centre has been adopted by the Revenue authorities, therefore, proper procedure should be made and system to be streamlined so that there is no delay in filing the appeal on account of the said reason. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

LAXMIDHAN TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by passing order u/s 250 dated 20/03/2023 dismissing the appeal filed

CONCORD INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA vs. PCIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

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

ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GKW LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 2 I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97 M/s. GKW Ltd. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.74,635/- u/s 40A(3) in the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. JSIS IRON & STEEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-XXIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesese being ITA No

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

210/- to the total income of the assessee on account of undervaluation of closing stock to the extent of excise duty, which had not been included by the assessee in the value of stock of finished goods. 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 read with section 263, an appeal was filed by the assessee

DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No. 451/Kol/2013 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 1622/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09

210 of the Companies Act. This section cannot be applied in relation to the assessee. In fact, the very concept of a “meaning “is alien to MSEB. A meeting can be between two or more persons. In case of MSEB there is no other person. Similarly, second proviso to sub-section (2) provides that where a company has adopted

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

210 (1) of the Act is that the as long as the payee/resident (which in this case is ALIP) has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid tax on such income, the Assessee would not be treated as a person in default

BRIPRANIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL- I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2000-01

condone the delay in respect of the appeal before us and admit the same for hearing on merits. Shri Manish Tiwari, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Rajat Subhna Biswas appearing on behalf of Revenue. 3. Grounds raised by assessee are reproduced below:- “1. FOR THAT none of the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the revenue. ITA No.1987/Kol/2013-M/s. Kilburn Engineering Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 4. As far as the issue raised by the revenue in the grounds of appeal is concerned, the same relates to eligibility of the assessee’s for exemption u/s 54G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in respect of a sum of Rs.10

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted in respect of ‘Golden Goenka group of 18.11.2021 assessees’ on by the directorate of Income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJ GOENKA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata……...……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raj Goenka…………………………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent 10Th Floor Magma House, 24, Park Street Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Adlpg8181C] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2025 Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 08 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.

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted in respect of ‘Golden Goenka group of Raj Goenka assessees’ on 18.12.2021 by the directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), UP & Uttarakhand