SRI JAYANTA SAHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

delay should be condoned and we do so and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the notice issued by AO u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated

SAMIRUDDIN KHAN,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), , BURDWAN

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 Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 16.12.2019 is illegal, bad in law, inter alia

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that in this case

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that in this case

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that in this case

NORTH INDIA WIRES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed on legal issue

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjo Sarma, Jm Dcit, Circle 3(1), Kolkata North India Wires Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12, Regent House Govt. Place Chowringhee Square, East, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn0120A Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2025

244 days. The ld. Counsel North Indian Wires Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 for the assessee stated that the delay is for genuine and bonafide reasons and assessee has not been benefited in any manner from the delayed filing in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the delay in filing the appeal

ANISHA ESTATE & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Delay condoned. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is , accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 9. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we cancel the penalty levied of Rs. 70,69,920/- by the AO U/Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed by the CIT-A. Accordingly, the grounds

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE -4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GILLANDER ARBITHNOT & CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. It is also noticed that the revenue has moved adjourned petition in almost 19 cases out of the listed case of 23. This en block adjournment is not possible and hence, the possible case, we have taken up for hearing and decided the issue by rejecting the adjournment petition

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

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay of 28 days in filing the\npresent appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for\nhearing.\n4. It was submitted by the Id. AR that as per the AO, the assessee had\nmade investments in allegedly three penny stock companies, namely, JMD\nTelefilms Industries Limited, Unisys Softwares & Holding Industries Ltd.\nand Nouveau Global Ventures Limited

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as 6 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg. Ltd.., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as 6 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg. Ltd.., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

condone the delay and admit the appeal for regular hearing. 3. The brief facts arising in this case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 24.09.2009 declaring loss of Rs.30,97,3290/-. Notices u/s 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee and as and when called

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GANGOUR TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In this appeal the revenue has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that in this

M/S JOB NEED SECURITY SERVICES,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O.,WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal. 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R of the assessee drew our attention to page no. 1 of both assessment years paper book from which we find placed the copy of notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 read with section

M/S JOB NEED SECURITY SERVICES,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O.,WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal. 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R of the assessee drew our attention to page no. 1 of both assessment years paper book from which we find placed the copy of notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 read with section

SURENDRA KUMAR MITTAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.563/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Surendra Kumar Mittal Vs. Ito, Ward – 45(2), Kolkata

244/-, therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the balance amount of Rs.3,01,05,654/- (Rs.1,22,84,875/- + Rs.1,78,20,779/-). In both the additions, the facts are identical and common. The assessee, during the assessment proceedings filed copies of Form No.15I for Rs.1,22,84,875/-. The lorry charges amounting to Rs.1,22,84,875/-,was subject