DCIT, CIRCLE - 48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJAY JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed , appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

3) / 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). ITA Nos.1649/K/2010, CO No. 162/K/2010 1 & ITA No. 1676/K/2010 Sanjay Jaiswal-A-AM 2. At the outset, the cross objection of the assessee is taken as it raises the preliminary objection that the assessment framed is barred by limitation. We find that the cross objection preferred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ESPLANADE AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. ALERT CONSULTANTS AND CREDIT PVT LTD, R N MUKHERJEE ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay. The Income Tax Officer, being a Government Officer, should have avoided to give a incorrect affidavit before this Tribunal. 6. The appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. However, we are also surprised as to why the revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). The concluding

ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIR-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

M/S ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

BABA IRON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

254 read with Section 144B of the Act. 6. Dissatisfied with this order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 07.02.2023. 7. Dissatisfied with both these orders, assessee came up before the Tribunal. The Registry has pointed out that appeal of the assessee is time barred

AMRITLAXMI COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condonation of delay is being made, is under the signature of ld. Counsel for the 3 Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Amritlaxmi Commercial Pvt. Limited assessee and not under the signature of any authorized person, who can sign the return. The signatures on the appeal are of one Asha Mishra, but the Power of Attorney issued in favour

GIRIK ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD 6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 9. Vide issue raised in ground no. 2, the assessee has assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act of the Act which is invalid, ab-initio void, ultra vires and ex-facie nullity in the eyes

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. CFL CAPITAL FINANCIAL 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.2390/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1995-96)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of revenue for hearing. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue reads as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred by holding that this case falls under purview of Section 153(2A) and not under section 153(3

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay and admit these cross objections filed by assessee. 25. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties and perusing the judicial decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We note that the education cess is allowable for deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. For this, we rely on the judgment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

254 of the Act. 3-4 41/Lkw/20 DCIT, Central M/s. Sahara India CIT(A)-III, Lucknow’s 29.03.2001 02 with C.O. Circler-I, Commercial order dated framed by No.24/Lkw/ Lucknow Corporation Ltd. 30.10.2001 passed in DCIT, Central 2005 for AY: case no. 85/44/CC- Circle-I, 1994-95 I/LKO/2001-02 Lucknow involving proceedings under Section 144/251 of the Act. 5-6 705/Lkw/2

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

254 of the Act. 3-4 41/Lkw/20 DCIT, Central M/s. Sahara India CIT(A)-III, Lucknow’s 29.03.2001 02 with C.O. Circler-I, Commercial order dated framed by No.24/Lkw/ Lucknow Corporation Ltd. 30.10.2001 passed in DCIT, Central 2005 for AY: case no. 85/44/CC- Circle-I, 1994-95 I/LKO/2001-02 Lucknow involving proceedings under Section 144/251 of the Act. 5-6 705/Lkw/2

RAMAKRISHNA RAO,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3 Ramakrishna Rao Chintalapudi, AY: 2020-21. 7. That then Sri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate prepared the appeal papers and finally the same was filed on 15.03.2024 before the Hon'ble Tribunal with a delay of 85 days. 8. That your petitioner prays that in the facts and circumstances stated above, the delay of 85 days in filing appeal before

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the sum of Rs.77,70,880/- incurred towards