JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

condonation of delay. Thesaid Tax Advocate prepared the necessary documents and shared it with the Assessee and the said tax consultant vide an email dated March 11, 2020. The said Tax Advocate also advised that after filing of the instant appeal, an application should be made for hearing the instant appeal along with the appeal being ITA No. 314/Kol/2017 (hereinafter

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,(I.T.) CIR.-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

condonation of\ndelay.\n16. Your petitioner states that the said tax consultant immediately gave\ndirections to the said Tax Advocate to draft the application for\ncondonation of delay. Thesaid Tax Advocate prepared the necessary\ndocuments and shared it with the Assessee and the said tax consultant\nvide an email dated March 11, 2020. The said Tax Advocate also advised\nthat

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

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. CIT, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviasansol Durgapur V/S. Commissioner Of Development Authority Income Tax, 1St Administrative Durgapur, Urmila Building, City Center, Bhawan, City Center Durgapur, West Bengal [Pan No.Aaala 0733G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condoning the delay of registration application. The law of Income Tax Act clearly states that in terms of Sec. 12A(2) where the application made for registration u/s. 12A of the Act on or after the first day of June, 2007, the exemption of income would be available to the assessee from the Assessment Year immediately following the financial year

CARRYCO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 40, , KOLKATA

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

227 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed the condonation petition along with affidavit.\n03. After going through the contents of the affidavit and hearing the rival parties, we are inclined to condone the delay as the delay for sufficient, genuine and bonafide reasons.\n04. We further note that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIGHNAHARTA VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Vighnharta Vincom Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) Limited 5Th Floor, Room No. 5/12/2B, 94-G, Apartments No.1, 9 Th Cross Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, Road, Rajamahalvilas Extension Vs. Chowringhee Square, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangalore, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Karnataka-560080, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcv6413E Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹5,53,73,000/- as made by the ld. AO in respect of share capital/ share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit

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

AAYUSH COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Aayush Commerce Private Limited Pcit, Kolkata – 2 Maurya Patna Vs South Gandhi Maidan Patna - 800001 [Pan : Aacca0933B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pr. Cit”], Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 09/03/2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 311 (Three Hundred & Eleven Days) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 09/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of Covid-19 Which Has Been Excluded By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 Dated 10.01.2022 By Which The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Has Been Directed To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Limitation. Vide This Order A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has assailed the order of the ld. Pr. CIT on the ground that the revisionary proceedings as well as revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act is barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 263(2) of the Act and, therefore, required to be quashed. 4. The facts

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeals by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 03. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 4,49,37,500/- under section 68 of the Act on account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeals by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 03. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 4,49,37,500/- under section 68 of the Act on account

OM PRAKASH SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 3. As the issues raised in both these appeals are common and as the facts are identical, for the sake of convenience and brevity, they are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order. When the cases were called up, none appeared

T & I PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 3. As the issues raised in both these appeals are common and as the facts are identical, for the sake of convenience and brevity, they are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order. When the cases were called up, none appeared

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. K KALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the inability of the appellant/applicant to approach the Court/Tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay, in the absence of a formal application

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. K KALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the inability of the appellant/applicant to approach the Court/Tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay, in the absence of a formal application

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LITTLESTAR SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n3.\nThe only issue raised by the Revenue in the various grounds of\nappeal is against the order of Id. CIT (A) deleting the addition of\n*27,63,00,000/- as made by the Id. AO u/s 68 of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 (the Act) by treating the share

AC CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condoning the delay. 3. Issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 are general in nature and does not need any specific adjudication. 2 I.T.A. No.374/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2007-08 AC Construction 4. Issue raised in ground no. 3 and 4 are not pressed at the time of hearing. Accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 5. Issue raised in ground

FACIT SALES(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-5, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 4. The Pr. CIT-5, Kolkata invokes the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and issued following show-cause notice to the assessee which is extracted for ready reference: “Related to the. Assessment year 2010-2011, your case was completed u/s. 147/143

EXIM SCRIPS DEALERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 502/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 412, Mukti Chambers Kolkata Vs 4Th Floor 4, Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaace6906E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Girish Sharma, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 10/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. This Assessee’S Appeal Is Time Barred By 43 Days. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. 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.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Pr.CIT-2, Kolkata erred in initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as there was no case of erroneous order and/or order prejudicial

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue stands dismissed and the Cross Objection of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Dr. M. L. Meena, Hon’Ble]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Ground nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the revenue read as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in deleting the capitalization of interest expenses of Rs.6,63,00,000/- on the basis of submission of the assessee without