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

SRI DEBASISH ROY CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2279/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-2008) Sri Debasish Roy Chowdhury, Vs. Acit, Circle-52, Kolkata 46E/1, New Ballygunge Road, 2, Gariahat Road(South), Kolkata-39 Kolkata-68 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipr 7212 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Saswati Mitra(Dutta), Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit,Srdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R

section provides that Commissioner (Appeal) may admit an appeal after expiration of the said period if he satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. While it is true, that the power of condoning delay should be exercised in a liberal manner, for that the basic condition, that sufficient cause for delay should

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-12-2017 making additions of Rs.3,55,92,450/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect

KAUSHALYA SINGHA,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), SILIGURI

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

260/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') in his assessment order considered the non-cash deposits of Rs. 1,70,844/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs. 60,837/- as interest income tax at normal provisions. The ld. AO has passed the assessment order u/s 144 read with Section

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

K T HANDLOOMS, BURDWAN,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1860/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 K.T. Handlooms,……………………..………...……Appellant R.B. Basu Sarak, Sadarghat, Burdwan-713103, West Bengal [Pan:Aaofk4187G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(1), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Bishewar Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 21, 2025

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of bed-sheets, bed-covers, pillow covers, curtains, mats and other related handloom items and filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.7,86,260/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS

INDRAVATI DEVI BAGRODIA CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1.1, EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

260 (Delhi), order dated 29.04.2025.\n(b) Laxmannarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra reported in 167\ntaxmann.com 548 (Gujarat), dated 10.09.2024\n(c) Sau Dwarkabai Tai Karwa Charitable Public Trust reported in 174\ntaxmann.com 245 (Bombay), order dated 25.03.2025.\n5. It is noted that in this case Form No.10B had not been uploaded\nwithin the due date, which is claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. NETAI BHADRA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

delay is condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income in Form ITR 3 on 31/03/2021 declaring total income at Rs.28,57,690/-. Subsequently, the assessee also filed a revised return of income on 18.09.2021 declaring total income at Rs.22,72,880/-. The said revised return was processed under section

FOOTBALL PLAYER ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPTION, , KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: the ITAT for the sake of convenience the grounds pertaining to ITA No. 414/Kol/2025 (AY 2018-19) are extracted for reference: “1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the A.O (CPC) in assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,07,17,801/- against the returned income of Rs.63,510/- by denying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the Audit Report in Form 10B and the Ret

260 (Delhi), order dated 29.04.2025. (b) Laxmannarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra reported in 167 taxmann.com 548 (Gujarat), dated 10.09.2024 (c) Sau Dwarkabai Tai Karwa Charitable Public Trust reported in 174 taxmann.com 245 (Bombay), order dated 25.03.2025. 5. It is noted that in this case Form No.10B had not been uploaded within the due date, which is claimed to be unintentional

FOOTBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

260 (Delhi), order dated 29.04.2025. (b) Laxmannarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra reported in 167 taxmann.com 548 (Gujarat), dated 10.09.2024 (c) Sau Dwarkabai Tai Karwa Charitable Public Trust reported in 174 taxmann.com 245 (Bombay), order dated 25.03.2025. 5. It is noted that in this case Form No.10B had not been uploaded within the due date, which is claimed to be unintentional

M/S ELCON ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

260/-. It is alleged that during that year, three companies namely (i) Handsome Dealers Private Limited, (ii) Madhyam Infrastructure Private Limited & (iii) I.T.A. No.: 769/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/s Elcon Estate Pvt. Ltd. Rahul Infra Project Private Limited amalgamated with the appellant company and all the income and expenses were incorporated in the books of accounts of the assessee

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that in this case

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that in this case

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that in this case

BENGAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.199/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bengal Education Foundation…………….………………………..………….……Appellant 17/1, Rishi Bankim Chandra Road, Dum Dum, Kol-28. [Pan: Aactb1869Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata…..……....….….. ……………….........…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Public Charitable Trust & Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022-23 In Itr-7 On 02.11.2022 Under The Status Of Aop/Boi By Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.1,15,12,715/-. The Said Return Of Income Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Order Dated 31.03.2023 A Demand Of Rs.50,28,260/- Had Been Raised After Denying The Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Made In The Return Of Income. Before Passing Of The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act, The Cpc Had Sent Communication To The Assessee On 14.02.2023 Intimating The Proposed Adjustments.

260/- had been raised after denying the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act made in the return of income. Before passing of the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, the CPC had sent communication to the assessee on 14.02.2023 intimating the proposed adjustments. I.T.A. No.199/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bengal Education Foundation 3. Aggrieved