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 WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

246A of the Act, by the Hon'ble ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, SURAT under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of belated filing of appeal, are in strict violation of principles of natural justice and beyond law. 6. The disallowance of expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden

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.

246A of the Act, by the Hon'ble ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, SURAT under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of belated filing of appeal, are in strict violation of principles of natural justice and beyond law. 6. The disallowance of expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden

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.

246A of the Act, by the Hon'ble ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, SURAT under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of belated filing of appeal, are in strict violation of principles of natural justice and beyond law. 6. The disallowance of expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden

STARPOINT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) The Learned NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming additions made in the assessment order by passing ex-parte order and without deciding the appeal of merits and hence the order of NFAC may be set-aside

SHRI NITYANAND PANDEY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1),, HOOGHLY

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 Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 22.04.2024 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. I.T.A. No.: 2067/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nityanand Pandey

PALLISHRI SAMABAYA KRISHI UNANYAN SAMITY LIMITED,COOCHBEHAR vs. I.T.O., WARD 2.1, COOCHBEHAR

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the order u/s 250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is against the principle of natural justice. 2. For that

GIASUDDIN SHAIKH,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has been carrying on the business of Labour Contract Job under N.T.P.C. Ltd. Nabarun, Murshidabad and he submitted his return of income disclosing income of Rs. 11,85,740.00 for the AY 2017-18. The assessee claimed

RISHIKESH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law in passing ex-parte order u/s.250 of the Act, in haste without considering the submission made in this appellate hearing before

INDIA CONSTRUCTION,DIAMOND HARBOUR vs. ITO, WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

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 Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the learned Assessing Officer is bad in Law. 2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3) The assessee has taken only one ground of appeal in form 36 objecting that the Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law for dismissing the appeal and confirming the assessment order without considering materials on record. 4) Brief facts of the case as emerging from

SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.277/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Mishra ………. Appellant (Pan: Ahppm0825R) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 21.07.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata Dated 24.12.2019. 2. Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Of Assessee Is Time Barred By 96 Days. Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By Assessee. Perusal Of The Same & Also Considering The Ratio Of I.T.A. No. 277/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Mishra, Ay : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. .For that the Assessment order U/s.144 of the Act is illegal & void. 2. For that the Appeal Order dated 21/07/2023 was passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Income Tax Department, NFAC without considering the Grounds of Appeal and facts

AVR STORAGE TANK TERMINALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

condonation of delay, mention of filing of Form No. 10-IC and Form 3CA on Page 27 and the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra) relating to section 9 read with sections 5 and 40(a)(i) and Section 40(a)(ii) r.w.s. 28(i) of the Act on pages

DENJONG CHARITIES,GANGTOK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

condoned the delay in submitting Form 10A and specifically provided that - “It is also clarified that if any existing trust, institution or fund who had failed to file Form No. 10A for AY 2022-23 within the due date as extended by the CBDT circular no. 6/2023 dated 24.05.2023 and subsequently, applied for provisional registration as a new trust, institution

SARANG DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) faceless has erred in by not deleting the adding of Rs. 80,50,000/- added by the Ld. A.O as unexplained cash credit though

MONDAL EDUCATION TRUST,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “The appellant being a Trust, filed the Return of Income for the A.Y. 2021- 22 on 09.12.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 2,31,667/-. The Trust was registered on 18.05.2009 vide Registration No. APE01188