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

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

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

2. Because The Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation application and dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay in filing, without considering the genuine and unavoidable reasons cited by the appellant, that the delay was not intentional, and that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. 3. Because

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

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

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

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

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

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

2)(b) to learned Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for condonation of delay. However, since the delay was not condoned until the time when the impugned order was framed, the learned CIT (A) M/s Sikar Zilla Welfare Trust; A.Y. 2018-19 confirmed the action of CPC. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has referred to various decision

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

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

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

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 scheme and paid

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

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

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

condoned in the interest of justice. 3. FOR THAT the appellant had placed on record all relevant and verifiable documents such as Form 16, Form 12BA, Form 26AS, and TRACES TDS Certificate which clearly substantiated the correct amount of salary income, but the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same. 4. FOR THAT the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CHEMEX OIL PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing the present appeals is hereby condoned. 3. The sole issue involved in all these appeals is as to whether the product manufactured by the assessee namely, “organic inedible fatty acid” would fall within the excluded/negative items as listed in XIII Schedule of the Act and, therefore, whether the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IC

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CHEMEX OIL PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing the present appeals is hereby condoned. 3. The sole issue involved in all these appeals is as to whether the product manufactured by the assessee namely, “organic inedible fatty acid” would fall within the excluded/negative items as listed in XIII Schedule of the Act and, therefore, whether the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IC

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CHEMEX OIL PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing the present appeals is hereby condoned. 3. The sole issue involved in all these appeals is as to whether the product manufactured by the assessee namely, “organic inedible fatty acid” would fall within the excluded/negative items as listed in XIII Schedule of the Act and, therefore, whether the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IC