A B CAPITAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32, , KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merit after hearing the parties. 3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, ………………………………” 1.1. Considering the reasons advanced for justifying the said delay, this appeal is admitted for adjudication. I.T.A

SRIRAMPUR NITYANANDA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,TAMLUK, PURBA MEDNIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(3),, HALDIA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234/- under section 144 of the Act of the Act by denying the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act as no return of income was filed. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but as there was no compliance and the issues raised in the grounds of appeal

DHAR & COMPANY PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

234 days. The\nLd. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that since, the delay in\nfiling the appeal is for the sufficient reasons and therefore the same\nmay be condoned.\n03. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments of the\nLd. AR by submitting that the delay has not been explained by the\ncounsel

M/S. EMERALD PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-5(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate order was passed on ex-parte basis by the learned CIT(Appeals) was without considering the submission made on 24/01/2017

PRAYAS EK ASHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), EXEMPT,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

234 A/B/C the same was unjustified and hence the same be directed to recomputed the interest as per law. 5) The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963. 6) The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above

GAJANAND AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

234 days. For the sake of convenience, ITA No. 880/Kol/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 is being taken as the lead case. The application for condonation the said delay filed for ITA No. 880/Kol/2025 is reproduced as under: “Most respectfully, the appellant begs to submit as under:- 1. That the Order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here

GAJANAND AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

234 days. For the sake of convenience, ITA No. 880/Kol/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 is being taken as the lead case. The application for condonation the said delay filed for ITA No. 880/Kol/2025 is reproduced as under: “Most respectfully, the appellant begs to submit as under:- 1. That the Order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here

GAJANAND AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

234 days. For the sake of convenience, ITA No. 880/Kol/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 is being taken as the lead case. The application for condonation the said delay filed for ITA No. 880/Kol/2025 is reproduced as under: “Most respectfully, the appellant begs to submit as under:- 1. That the Order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here

GAJANAND AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

234 days. For the sake of convenience, ITA No. 880/Kol/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 is being taken as the lead case. The application for condonation the said delay filed for ITA No. 880/Kol/2025 is reproduced as under: “Most respectfully, the appellant begs to submit as under:- 1. That the Order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here

GAJANAND AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

234 days. For the sake of convenience, ITA No. 880/Kol/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 is being taken as the lead case. The application for condonation the said delay filed for ITA No. 880/Kol/2025 is reproduced as under: “Most respectfully, the appellant begs to submit as under:- 1. That the Order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUBLIME AGRO LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay of two hundred thirty seven days in filing appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) due non-availability of assessment record and malfunctioning of copying machine which may kindly condoned. ii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-22 has erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. VEDANTA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3.\nThe assessee has pressed two legal issues at the time of hearing (\nGround No. 2 and 4 as raised in the cross objection which is\nextracted below:-\n\"2. For that the learned. CIT(A) incorrectly concluded that AO had looked into the\ninformation and that condition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. UTTARAYAN TRUST FOR EDUCATION & SOCIAL WELFARE, COOCH BEHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’). 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 73 days. The revenue has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the affidavit for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay

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

MOHIT JINDAL,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD-47(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 44AD of the Act whereas the prevailing margin ranges from 0.75% to 1% of the turnover. I.T.A. No.652/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohit Jindal 3. At the outset, we notice that there is a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit dated 19.12.2022 affirming on oath that he was not well

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & 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 appellant Mr. Santanu Sanyal filed his return of income online for the AY 2016-17 declaring taxable income at Rs. 2,55,640/- after claiming a deduction of INR 2,19,372/- under Chapter

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The grounds relating to the assessment order never being served and thus being time barred and the notice not being received by the assessee were dismissed after going through the screen shots of the notices issued and examining the law in this regard. As regards the reasons for reopening not being