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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 2 M/s Auto Care Centre A.Yr.2008-09 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271E of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The brief

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. The issue raised in ground no.1 to 4 and 8 is against the order of Id. CIT (A) deleting the Arm's Length Price adjustment of ₹3,97,99,637 as made by the Id. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer on account interest on loan.\n3.1. The facts in brief are that

THE EXECUTOR TO THE ESTATE OF SUKHENDU PRASAD CHOUDHURY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of substantive justice. 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer, CPC (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') is seen to have issued an intimation order dated 22.03.2023 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), in which TDS claim of Rs. 71,583/- was not granted ostensibly because

BCDA MEMBERS BENEVOLENT TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.787/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bcda Members Benevolent Trust ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabtb0860C) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 24.07.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2020-21 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 07.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By Ao, Cpc Dated 26.04.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

275/-. 5. Your appellant submits that while processing the return of income u/s. 143(1) and u/s 154, the Learned Assessing Authority has adjusted your appellant's just and genuine claim of refund of excess amount of tax paid thorough TDS amounting Rs.3,81,712/- with unprecedented demand of tax and interest, and finally confirmed

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay of 28 days in filing the\npresent appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for\nhearing.\n4. It was submitted by the Id. AR that as per the AO, the assessee had\nmade investments in allegedly three penny stock companies, namely, JMD\nTelefilms Industries Limited, Unisys Softwares & Holding Industries Ltd.\nand Nouveau Global Ventures Limited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee an Investment Company with investments in various unlisted manufacturing companies. During the relevant Financial Year, share applications amounting to Rs. 8,75,00,000/- were received from various share applicants to whom equity share allotted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH JAIN, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. First, we take up ITA No. 1006/Kol/2024. 3. Ground no. 1 of the revenue is against the deleting the addition of Rs.4,94,43,275/- in respect of undisclosed sales by the assessee without appreciating the materials brought on record and facts evaluated by the AO in the assessment order

DCIT, CC-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH JAIN, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. First, we take up ITA No. 1006/Kol/2024. 3. Ground no. 1 of the revenue is against the deleting the addition of Rs.4,94,43,275/- in respect of undisclosed sales by the assessee without appreciating the materials brought on record and facts evaluated by the AO in the assessment order

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

REETA LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

RAVISH LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

PRAVESH KUMAR LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

JCIT (OSD), CIR-11(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. AA INFRAPROPERTIES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. As the issues involved in both these appeals are identical, they were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this common order. 4. We will first take up the appeal in ITA No. 200/Kol/2023 for AY 2014-15. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 taken

JCIT(OSD), CIR-II(1). , KOLKATA vs. M./S AA INFRAPROPERTIES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. As the issues involved in both these appeals are identical, they were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this common order. 4. We will first take up the appeal in ITA No. 200/Kol/2023 for AY 2014-15. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 taken

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

section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, "speculative transaction" has been defined to mean a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity is settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of such commodity. However, as stated above, the assessee was not a dealer in foreign exchange. The assessee was an exporter