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, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RASHMI CEMENT LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Kolkata 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 4343 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata Dated 13.04.2017 Passed In Case No.1119/Cc2(2)/Cit(A)/15-16 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of Rs.3,09,69,700/- In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Time Of Hearing That This Revenue’S Appeal Suffers From Four Days Delay In Filing. It Filed Condonation Petition 06.07.2017 Describing Reasons Thereof To Various Procedural Formalities At Departmental Level. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Is Very Fair In Not Disputing The Said Solemn Averments. We Therefore Condone The Impugned Four Days Delay In Filing Of Revenue’S Instant Appeal As Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate.

condone the impugned four days delay in filing of Revenue’s instant appeal as neither intentional nor deliberate. I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rashmi Cement Ltd. 3. We proceed further to notice that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deleting the impugned penalty reads as follows: “6. I have considered the findings given by the A.O in the penalty

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

GINZA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

condone the impugned delay 1146and 699 days and admit the appeal(s) for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively:- AY 2013-14 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) erred in framing an ex parte order

GINZA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

condone the impugned delay 1146and 699 days and admit the appeal(s) for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively:- AY 2013-14 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) erred in framing an ex parte order

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

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

1,00,70,000. Due to market conditions, such forward contracts could be utilised only to the extent of US$ 53,32,334.34 and the remaining contracts for US$ 47,37,665.66 had to be cancelled. We further observed that the findings of the AO that the assessee dealt in forward contracts or that it was an independent business

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

1,00,70,000. Due to market conditions, such forward contracts could be utilised only to the extent of US$ 53,32,334.34 and the remaining contracts for US$ 47,37,665.66 had to be cancelled. We further observed that the findings of the AO that the assessee dealt in forward contracts or that it was an independent business

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

1,00,70,000. Due to market conditions, such forward contracts could be utilised only to the extent of US$ 53,32,334.34 and the remaining contracts for US$ 47,37,665.66 had to be cancelled. We further observed that the findings of the AO that the assessee dealt in forward contracts or that it was an independent business

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

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

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

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

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

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