BASTUHARA SAHAYATA SAMITI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

condonation of delay in submission of Form 10 before the ld. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata which was rejected by the ld. CIT vide order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act dated 20.12.2018. It was noted that the claim has not mentioned in the ITR 7 and in the resolution passed in the Executive Committee meeting, the fund

THE EXECUTOR TO THE ESTATE OF SUKHENDU PRASAD CHOUDHURY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of substantive justice. 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer, CPC (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') is seen to have issued an intimation order dated 22.03.2023 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), in which TDS claim of Rs. 71,583/- was not granted ostensibly because

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

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 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 and in law, the direction of CIT(A)-NFAC to restrict the levy of penalty to 100% of tax sought to be evaded

ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. M/S. ANUBANDH FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. First, we shall take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2390/KOL/2024. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of share capital

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

M/S SIKAR ZILLA WELFARE TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Sikar Zilla Welfare Income Tax Officer, Trust Ward 1(3), Exempt 1A, Sikar Bhawan, Vs. Ashutosh Dey Lane, Kolkata-400071 Kolkata-700006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts3808D Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024

251(1)(a) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) in disposing the appeal against order of assessment has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, therefore, though, it was not possible to entertain the audit report while processing the return u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act, but the ld. CIT(A) was well within

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

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

PRESTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT 5(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1,18,39,246/- and on the basis of I.T.A. No.: 802/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Prestar Infrastructure Projects Ltd. the information received from the Insight portal, the assessment of the assessee was reopened as the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries and had received an amount to the tune of Rs. 53,10,905/- from

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

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

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

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

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

1 Aditi Mitra 2. The appeal is time barred by 251 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition dated 06.01.2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 251 days mentioning that the she availed the benefit of Income Disclosure Scheme (IDS) 2016 and declared her undisclosed income under that

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

1) This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld CIT(A) NFAC dated 26/03/2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income tax Act 1961( henceforth referred to as the Act), which has emanated from the order of the AO ( AU/ITD) dated 18/03/2023, passed u/s 147/ 144B of the Act. 2) Condonation of delay: It is pointed

SILIGURI HEIGHTS PVT LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, SILIGURI

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. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee when the impugned proceedings were without jurisdiction, illegal and void

SHREYA DEY SARKAR,PUNE, MAHARASHTRA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4),, RAIGANJ, WEST DINAJPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1) of the Act without adjudicating on the merits of the case, thereby denying the appellant the opportunity of fair hearing and justice. 5. FOR THAT the appellant submits that the error in reporting salary was clerical and bonafide in nature, and there was no mala fide intent or attempt to conceal income, thus the addition is untenable

JIYA EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay is for reasonable\ncause and is accordingly, condoned.\n3. The issues raised in Ground No. 1 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)\nsetting aside the assessment to the file of the AO instead of quashing re-\nopening of assessment as the approval u/s 151 of the Act is mechanical\nin nature and not in accordance with