DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SUNIL KUMAR KUNDU, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is here by dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee is a partnership firm furnished its return of income for AY 2016-17. During the course of assessment u/s 3 I.T.A. No. 2110/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sunil Kumar Kundu 143(3) of the Act, it was found from the examination of assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nCOs of the assessee are partly allowed

condoned the delay in filing the appeals and cross objections. For AY 2013-14, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act was quashed as it violated the proviso to Section 147. The appeals filed by the Revenue related to this issue were dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17, the Revenue

DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

271D, section 271E, 76[section 271F, 77[section 271FA,] 78[section 271FAB,]79[section 271FB,] 80[section 271G,]] 81[section 271GA,] 81a[section 271GB,] 82[section 271H,] 83[section 271-I,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or 84[section 272B

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 29, Kolkata [in short the ld AO]. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 3 days in filing of appeal by the revenue before us which is supported by the condonation petiton and on going

SANDEEP KUMAR SETHIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(2), , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

delay. Considering the application for condonation of\ndelay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee\nhad a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the\ninstant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the\ndelay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following

ITO, WARD-3(1),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S RANJIT JEWELLERS, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and heard the appeal on merits. ITA No. 2425/Kol/13 M/s. Ranjit Jewellers . 1 3. None appeared for Respondent Assessee. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal hearing the Ld. DR of the Appellant Revenue and perusing the material available on record. 4. The Revenue raised the following effective ground of appeal:- “That

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURDWAN vs. PAHARHATI O UTTAR MEMARI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication as there is sufficient cause for the delay. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the penalty

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271D of the Act, dated 28.12.2022. I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 Gurupada Maji. Since the issues in all the four appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. We will take up the appeal

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271D of the Act, dated 28.12.2022. I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 Gurupada Maji. Since the issues in all the four appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. We will take up the appeal

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271D of the Act, dated 28.12.2022. I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 Gurupada Maji. Since the issues in all the four appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. We will take up the appeal

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271D of the Act, dated 28.12.2022. I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 Gurupada Maji. Since the issues in all the four appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. We will take up the appeal

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 427/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6(2), Kolkata Vs 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber Vs Tax, Circle-6(2), Kolkata 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/06/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross-Objection Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 965 Days In Filing The Cross-Objection By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A 2

condone the delay and proceed to admit the same for hearing. 3. First, we will take up the revenue’s appeal. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading, manufacturing and investment. Loss of Rs.39,45,49,119/- declared in the e-return for Assessment Year 2009-10 furnished