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

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

condone the delay of 20 days in preferring cross objections before us and the same is admitted herein for adjudication. 2.1. The ground raised by the assesee in his cross objection is as below:- That the CIT(Appeals) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case should have held that the assessment is barred by limitation of time

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

condonation of delay, it is mentioned in column 15 that “since I had the first available remedy to make a Rectification application u/s. 154 against the order u/s. 143(1) and thereon the rectification order has been received on 23.02.2023.” since the assessee had filed the rectification application which was disallowed it had the option to file an appeal

THE SALESIAN SISTERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), EXEMPT, , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condoning the delay in filing appeal before him in spite of the reasonable cause shown. I.T.A. No.: 576/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Salesian Siste₹ 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have reversed the action of the A.O. in assessing the income of the assessee

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

264 ITR 186 (Cal) wherein it is held that,\n3\nITA No.2238/KOL/2024\n\"... what is really indicated in the various decisions cited and\nin section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would\nbe required to explain why the appeal and/or application could\nnot be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and\nexplain the delay

PANDAVESWAR COLLIERY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80P of the Act also if the return of income are not filed before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Had it been a case of scrutiny proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the situation certainly would have been against the assessee subject to the approval by the authorities for condonation of delay

SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.277/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Mishra ………. Appellant (Pan: Ahppm0825R) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 21.07.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata Dated 24.12.2019. 2. Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Of Assessee Is Time Barred By 96 Days. Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By Assessee. Perusal Of The Same & Also Considering The Ratio Of I.T.A. No. 277/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Mishra, Ay : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. .For that the Assessment order U/s.144 of the Act is illegal & void. 2. For that the Appeal Order dated 21/07/2023 was passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Income Tax Department, NFAC without considering the Grounds of Appeal and facts

SRI BHAGDEV ROY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of revenue are partly allowed for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. In all appeals, the assessee has raised the 1st, 2nd and 3rd grounds against the 3. legal validity of proceedings initiated u/s. 153C of the Act which has not been pressed before us, therefore, we dismiss the same as not pressed. 4. The ground no. 4 of assessee’s appeal

SAIKAT CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO 61(1), KOLKATA

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

condonation of delay,\nassessee points out that were pursuing a remedy\nbefore another appellate forum which ought to be\nexcluded, said averment is sufficient to invoke section\n14 of the Limitation Act or principles laid down\ntherein. Provisions of the Limitation Act dealing with\nsuits, applications and appeals apply only to Courts\nand not to Tribunal other quasi-judicial authorities

ENHANCE AESTHETIC & COSMETIC STUDIO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Enhance Aesthetic & Cosmetic Studio Pvt. Ltd.………………….…….……Appellant 3C-12, Loudon Street, Kol- 17. [Pan: Aacce9208R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bishnu Kant Agrawal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 19, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

section 250 on 22/08/2024 7) That there is a delay of 296 days for which we are filing this condonation petition. 8) That delay in filing the appeal is because of a genuine reasons that is illness of my CA and also my faith in him that he is handling the matter. 9) That I Manoj Khanna director

ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE 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.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

condon the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. M/s Height Insurance Services Ltd. Assessment Year:2009-10 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows: 1. “In the facts and in the circumstances and on points of law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO highlighted that

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

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

condoned by the Ld. Addl/Jt. CIT(A), there was justified reason for setting aside the order and restore the appeal to the Ld. Addl/Jt. CIT(A) on this ground alone since the merits of the case have not been discussed. However, since the facts can be ascertained from the record and setting aside the order would cause further inconvenience

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

M/S. PRABHAKAR VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay

M/S. PROTEX COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay

M/S. SWIFT TRACOM PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay

M/S.LIFELINE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay