Search: condonation of delay

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 221/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 220/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIR-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 552/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 486/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2075/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 487/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

M/S ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 488/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR) & Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Bikash Chanda, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 40

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

FARHAN AHMED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 31(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 4/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 4/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Farhan Ahmed,……………………………..………Appellant Tower 4, Flat 81, Sunflowers Garden, 74, Topsia Road, South Topsia, Kolkata-700046, West Bengal [Pan:Bmrpa2975G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-31(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 249(2)Section 68

section 249(2) of the Act and there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Due to that, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed

NANDAN SEN,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), IT,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1929/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 1928 & 1929/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Nandan Sen,……………………………..…………Appellant Hb-87, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, West Bengal [Pan:Ayqps4319G] -Vs.- Assistant Director Of Income Tax,………...Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru

Section 143(1)

220/- (for A.Y. 2013-14) and Rs.12,56,532/- (for A.Y. 2014-15) arising out of salary that has occurred from his employment staying out of India for more than the stipulated days in a Company named “M/s. Simplex Infrastructures LLC, which was registered outside India. 3. Subsequently the assessee came to know that his returns of income have been

NANDAN SEN,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), IT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1928/KOL/2024[2013-2014 ]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 1928 & 1929/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Nandan Sen,……………………………..…………Appellant Hb-87, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, West Bengal [Pan:Ayqps4319G] -Vs.- Assistant Director Of Income Tax,………...Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru

Section 143(1)

220/- (for A.Y. 2013-14) and Rs.12,56,532/- (for A.Y. 2014-15) arising out of salary that has occurred from his employment staying out of India for more than the stipulated days in a Company named “M/s. Simplex Infrastructures LLC, which was registered outside India. 3. Subsequently the assessee came to know that his returns of income have been

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

ITA 1346/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

COAL EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(1), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 302/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(f)

delay is hereby condoned. 3 I.T.A. No. 302/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Coal Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Nil. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Act to the tune of Rs. 97,78,220/-. The return

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

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

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

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

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 COMMSSIONER 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

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

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

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

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 AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

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

M/S PANCHANAN MALLICK & BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3, BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1386/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1386/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-2011) M/S Panchanan Mallick & Vs. Ito Ward-3, Bankura Brothers, Po-Kotulpur, District-Bankura "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfp 7708 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Sri Nicholas Murmu, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Durgapur, In Appeal No.143/Cit(A)/Dgp/2012-13, Dated 03.02.2016, 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 17.01.2013. 2. First Of All We Noticed That This Appeal Is Time Barred For 51 Days. The Assesse Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. After Hearing The Ld Ar For The Assesse & Ld Dr For The Revenue In Respect Of Such Delay, We Find A Reasonable Cause To Condone The Delay & Accordingly We Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT

Section 143(3)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 17.01.2013. 2. First of all we noticed that this appeal is time barred for 51 days. The assesse filed an application for condonation of delay. After hearing the ld AR for the assesse and Ld DR for the Revenue in respect of such delay

SHIBANI ADDHYA,BONGAON vs. ITO WARD-49(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2270/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2270/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Shibani Addhya,………..……………………….…Appellant Shimultala, Bongaon, South 24-Parganas-743235, W.B. [Pan:Afypa7101D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, West Bengal Appearances By: Ms. Swatee Baid, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 09, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)

delay is condoned. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who filed her return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 21.11.2020 declaring total income of Rs.4,09,220/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee has purchased immovable property. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee but no response was received from