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

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 or] 85[sub-section

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

271E of the Act, dated 31.05.2022. 2. In this case, there is a delay in filing the appeal and an application for condonation of delay dated 20.12.2023 has been filed. It is stated that appeal scrutiny reports were sent to the PCIT, Asansol through proper channel and the approval was received from the PCIT, Asansol on 17.12.2023, and the application

M/S. SHREE SHANKAR SERVICE STATION. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-49(1), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay of 92 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without deciding the issue with regard to the validity of the order on initiation and satisfaction with regard to the applicability

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

ARABRISH CHOWBEY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.346/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ambrish Chowbey Vs. Acit, Rg-26, Kolkata Flat No.1C, Merlin Laurel 169, Ajc Bose Road, Garden, 71, Nrisingha Dutta Kolkata – 700014. Road, Behala, Kol – 8. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Acupc 5847 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri D.K. Saha, Fca Respondent By :Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-17, Kolkata, In Appeal No.113/Cit(A)-17/Kol, Dated 30.11.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.05.2008. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I) That The Order Of Ao Has Been Set Aside By Hon’Ble Itat Kolkata With The Directive To Re-Adjudicate The Same, Giving Due Opportunity To The Assessee To Produce Relevant Evidences. Ii) That The Revised Order Passed By The Ld. Ao In Deference To The Order Of Hon’Ble

condonation of delay has been unjustified as the same has been done merely on assumption than on fact. Ambrish Chowbey Assessment Year: 2005-06 v) That the repayment of loan in cash taken from father and friend by a/c payee cheques does not attract the provisions of section 271E

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

I.T.O WD - 2(4),DURGAPUR., DURGAPUR vs. SMT. TANUKA SAHA (L/R OF ARUN KUMAR SAHA) C/O - M/S KAMALA SERVICE STATION, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

271E r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2007-08 vide his order dated 29.06.2010. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal of revenue is time barred by 78 days and revenue has filed condonation petition. In view of the reasons stated in condonation petition