TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

condoning the said delay 2 ITA Nos. 245-247Kol/2025 Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited in all of the three cases. For the sake of convenience, the affidavit filed for AY 2020-21 [ITA No. 245/Kol/2025] is extracted for reference: “I JISHNU PRATAP RAY, Son of Sukhendu Ray, born on 16/02/1967, having PAN: ACSPR7183B and DIN: 00818472, a Citizen of India

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

condoning the said delay 2 ITA Nos. 245-247Kol/2025 Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited in all of the three cases. For the sake of convenience, the affidavit filed for AY 2020-21 [ITA No. 245/Kol/2025] is extracted for reference: “I JISHNU PRATAP RAY, Son of Sukhendu Ray, born on 16/02/1967, having PAN: ACSPR7183B and DIN: 00818472, a Citizen of India

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EQUIPMENT BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

245 days which may kindly be condoned. 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue

ZULU MERCHANDISE (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 97,245/-. The return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 18.06.2013. Thereafter, case of the assessee was reopened

INDRAVATI DEVI BAGRODIA CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1.1, EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

245 (Bombay), order dated 25.03.2025.\n5. It is noted that in this case Form No.10B had not been uploaded\nwithin the due date, which is claimed to be unintentional on the part of the\nassessee. However, it is noted that the same was available before the Ld.\nAssessing Officer at the time of processing of the return of income

FOOTBALL PLAYER ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPTION, , KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: the ITAT for the sake of convenience the grounds pertaining to ITA No. 414/Kol/2025 (AY 2018-19) are extracted for reference: “1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the A.O (CPC) in assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,07,17,801/- against the returned income of Rs.63,510/- by denying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the Audit Report in Form 10B and the Ret

245 (Bombay), order dated 25.03.2025. 5. It is noted that in this case Form No.10B had not been uploaded within the due date, which is claimed to be unintentional on the part of the assessee. However, it is noted that the same was available before the Ld. Assessing Officer at the time of processing of the return of income

FOOTBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

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

245 (Bombay), order dated 25.03.2025. 5. It is noted that in this case Form No.10B had not been uploaded within the due date, which is claimed to be unintentional on the part of the assessee. However, it is noted that the same was available before the Ld. Assessing Officer at the time of processing of the return of income

PYARELAL SHAW,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-25(1), KOLKATA

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

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

245 days. An affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “I, Pyarelal Shaw, son of Suraj Shaw, aged about 57 years, by religion Hindu, residing at Santoshpur Bidhangarh, Kolkata - 700066, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. That I am the appellant in the above-mentioned case and am well- acquainted

SANDHYA DAS,SILIGURI vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

delay being condoned due to bonafide reasons. The core issue arose from the assessee obtaining a second PAN by mistake when attempting to get a copy of a misplaced PAN, leading to two active PANs.", "held": "The Tribunal held that having two PANs for the same individual is problematic. The issue requires further examination by the AO to reconcile

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA MUMBAI TRUCK TERMINAL LTD, HOWRAH

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for further adjudication. 7.1. The issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rental income from godowns derived by the assessee is to be taxed as business income of the assessee or as income from house property. 7.2. The facts

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law to hold that disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D will not apply where no exempt income is received

R . B. AGARWALLA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessee are allowed

condone the delay and take up these appeals for adjudication. 4. On perusal of grounds of appeal, it is revealed that all the appeals are mainly on the issue of disallowance made under the head of PF/ESI for delayed payment under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) and section 43B of the Act. 3. ITA No.475/Kol/21

RAJESH KUMAR MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessee are allowed

condone the delay and take up these appeals for adjudication. 4. On perusal of grounds of appeal, it is revealed that all the appeals are mainly on the issue of disallowance made under the head of PF/ESI for delayed payment under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) and section 43B of the Act. 3. ITA No.475/Kol/21

REKHA HALDER,KOLKATA vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,, BANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessee are allowed

condone the delay and take up these appeals for adjudication. 4. On perusal of grounds of appeal, it is revealed that all the appeals are mainly on the issue of disallowance made under the head of PF/ESI for delayed payment under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) and section 43B of the Act. 3. ITA No.475/Kol/21

THINK TEL SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessee are allowed

condone the delay and take up these appeals for adjudication. 4. On perusal of grounds of appeal, it is revealed that all the appeals are mainly on the issue of disallowance made under the head of PF/ESI for delayed payment under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) and section 43B of the Act. 3. ITA No.475/Kol/21

SRI TRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 28(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2004-05 Sri Triyogi Narayan Singh V/S. Ito, Ward-28(2), Aayakar Dakhin, 3Rd Floor, 2, 98, Garden Reach Road, Kolkta-700 023 Gariahat [Pan No.Apmps 8395 D] Road (South), Kolkata-700 068 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 250(6) provides that the orders of the first appellate authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing. Such orders ITA No.2080/Kol/2013 A.Y.2004-05 Sh Triyogi Narayan Singh v. ITO Wd-28(2) Kol. Page 3 are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decision. This

ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

condon the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. M/s Height Insurance Services Ltd. Assessment Year:2009-10 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows: 1. “In the facts and in the circumstances and on points of law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO highlighted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing as the reasons cited are bonafide and sufficient. 3. The issue raised in ground no.1 is deletion of addition of ₹8,07,00,000/- by the learned CIT (A) as made by the learned AO on account of unsecured loans taken by the assessee during the year. 3.1. The facts