DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTAN GUMS & CHEMICAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal

HINDUSTAN GUM & CHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal

KANOI TEA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

256 days. The assessee has submitted that it was neither served notice u/s 263 of the Act, nor the assessee was aware of any proceedings subsequent to the order passed u/s 263 of the Act as there was not communication on its registered e-mail id camac@kanoitea.com. 5. In support of the reasons, the assessee filed an affidavit mentioning

M/S PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. In view of the above, we decided to proceed and to adjudicate the matter on the basis of materials available on record. The assessee in Ground Nos.1 & 2 has challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 5. Briefly stated

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. These three appeals filed by the different assessee’s emanate from a common search conducted at their premises, involves common and identical issues, therefore, appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, since facts remain similar and the grounds

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. These three appeals filed by the different assessee’s emanate from a common search conducted at their premises, involves common and identical issues, therefore, appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, since facts remain similar and the grounds

M/S. SPAN FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. These three appeals filed by the different assessee’s emanate from a common search conducted at their premises, involves common and identical issues, therefore, appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, since facts remain similar and the grounds

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

256 days. The ld. Assessing Officer has filed an application for condonation of delay. He also annexed an affidavit dated 18.04.2023. The ld. Assessing Officer has contended that due to huge workload relating to time barring assessment, this matter skipped from his mind and, therefore, could not be sent for approval etc. within time. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

256 days. The ld. Assessing Officer has filed an application for condonation of delay. He also annexed an affidavit dated 18.04.2023. The ld. Assessing Officer has contended that due to huge workload relating to time barring assessment, this matter skipped from his mind and, therefore, could not be sent for approval etc. within time. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

condone the delay on merit and appeal is admitted. ITA No.736/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT Cir-29, Kol. Vs. P.K. Mohta (HUF) Page 2 Shri Saurabh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue and Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee. 2. Solitary issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that

DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BHUBRIGHAT TEA CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Dcit, Cicle-4(1), V/S. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. P-7, Chowringhee Pvt. Ltd. 6D, Shyamkunj, Square, Kolkata-69 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 2972 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivnd Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-10-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 23.01.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 17.12.2008 For Assessment Year 2006-07. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Cess On Green Leaf Of Rs.1172020/- Is An Allowable Expenditure Ignoring The Fact That Green Leaf Is Attributable To Agriculture Activities Which Is Taxable Under State Agriculture Income Tax Beyond The Purview Of Central Income Tax & As Per Rule 8 Only 40% Of The Composite Income Is Taxable Under Central Income Tax & Moreover On The Same Issue As Slp Is Pending Before Apex Court. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Employees Contribution To Pf Of Rs.244399/- Is Allowed If Deposited Before Filing Of Return, Ignoring The Fact That

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. First issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for an amount of ₹11,72,020/- on account of cess on green leaf. 4. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a private limited company and engaged

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned and the case is taken up for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction, filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. 51,40,573/-. The case was accordingly processed u/s 143(1) accepting

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

DCIT, CENTRAL -4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH AUTO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the ensuing paras.\nThe issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of Id. CIT (A)\ndeleting the addition of ₹7,57,50,000/- as made by the Id. AO in\nrespect of unsecured loans by treating the same as unexplained cash\ncredit u/s 68 of the Act.\n3.1. The facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

delay of 38 days which is clearly evident from the condonation letter filed by the Income should be dismissed. 2. In this case the Ld. AO is very much aware that original asst. was completed on the basis of selection of the case under scrutiny as per CASS(Large share premium) which is clearly mentioned on first page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

delay of 38 days which is clearly evident from the condonation letter filed by the Income should be dismissed. 2. In this case the Ld. AO is very much aware that original asst. was completed on the basis of selection of the case under scrutiny as per CASS(Large share premium) which is clearly mentioned on first page

SAMPAT MAL PARAKH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and immediately on\nbeing made aware, the copy of the order was downloaded and\nimmediately forwarded to the consultant for filing of the appeal before\nthe Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.\n4.0 In this context, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble\nMadras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

1,00,70,000. Due to market conditions, such forward contracts could be utilised only to the extent of US$ 53,32,334.34 and the remaining contracts for US$ 47,37,665.66 had to be cancelled. We further observed that the findings of the AO that the assessee dealt in forward contracts or that it was an independent business

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

1,00,70,000. Due to market conditions, such forward contracts could be utilised only to the extent of US$ 53,32,334.34 and the remaining contracts for US$ 47,37,665.66 had to be cancelled. We further observed that the findings of the AO that the assessee dealt in forward contracts or that it was an independent business