SENCO GOLD LTD AS SUCCESSOR TO SENCO GOLD IMPEX PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.838/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Senco Gold Ltd. As Successor To Vs. Cit-4, Kolkata. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd. C/O Senco Gold Ltd., Diamond Prestige, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 10Th Floor, Unit No.1001, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs2962C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No. 839/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Senco Gold Ltd. As Successor To Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd. C/O Senco Gold Ltd., Diamond Prestige, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 10Th Floor, Unit No.1001, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs2962C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata & Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Orders Dated 27.08.18 & 22.02.18, Involving Proceedings U/S 263/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961; In Short ‘The Act’, Respectively.

delay of 1250 days neither appears to be intentional nor deliberate but on account of wrong advice of its chartered accountant. We hold in these facts that the same is liable to be condoned going by the foregoing legal propositions that the cause of substantial justice must prevail over all other technicalities. The assessee’s former appeal ITA No.838/Kol/2018

BIMAL KUMAR SIKARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Bimal Kumar Sikaria Vs. Acit, Circle-40, Kolkata 159, Ramdular Sarkar Street, Kolkata – 700006. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aurps0380C (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not want to press Ground No.3, therefore we dismiss Ground No.3 raised by the assessee as not pressed. 5. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee relates to addition of Rs.45,00,000/- as undisclosed income

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. ITA No. 937/K/18 ITA No. 938/K/18 ITA No. 1439/K/18 A.Y 2010­11 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd 3 6. We shall take summarized and concise ground No.1, which reads as follows: (1). Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 937/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11 and Ground

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. ITA No. 937/K/18 ITA No. 938/K/18 ITA No. 1439/K/18 A.Y 2010­11 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd 3 6. We shall take summarized and concise ground No.1, which reads as follows: (1). Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 937/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11 and Ground

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

delay is not condoned for computation of income as per income Tax Act and is to be considered as Income of the assessee. As such a total sum of Rs.2,22,78,598/- is added back as assessee's income.” 7.1. The assessee stated that Section 2(24)(x) of the Act provides that any sum received by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

delay is not condoned for computation of income as per income Tax Act and is to be considered as Income of the assessee. As such a total sum of Rs.2,22,78,598/- is added back as assessee's income.” 7.1. The assessee stated that Section 2(24)(x) of the Act provides that any sum received by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

delay is not condoned for computation of income as per income Tax Act and is to be considered as Income of the assessee. As such a total sum of Rs.2,22,78,598/- is added back as assessee's income.” 7.1. The assessee stated that Section 2(24)(x) of the Act provides that any sum received by the assessee

DCIT CC1(4) KOLKKATA, KOLKATA vs. DADU TAXTILE LLP, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata…..……………… ……………...……….……….……Appellant Vs. Dadu Textile Llp……………......………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 16 Tara Chand Dutta Street, Near Mohammed Ali Park, Kol-700073. [Pan: Aamfd0909M] Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 72 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 72 days. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we find

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

condone the delay and proceed to admit the cross objection for hearing. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in ( facts in deleting the adjustment made by the AO/TPQ amounting

SURENDRA KUMAR MITTAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.563/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Surendra Kumar Mittal Vs. Ito, Ward – 45(2), Kolkata

condonation of delay, but Pr. CIT, vide order No.173 of 2015-16, dated 10.03.2016 has rejected the petition on the ground of inordinate delay without any valid reason. Therefore, the assessee`s claim for lorry hire charges for Rs.1,22,84,875/- was disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. We note that during the course

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the Revenue on merit. 4. In Ground No 1 raised in this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in accepting the treatment given by the assessee to the profit from sale of certain shares as business income instead of short-term capital

M/S TATA METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

279 (SC). He requested the Bench to decide the issue on merit. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of Authorities Below. 13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited and placed reliance upon. From the foregoing discussion, we note that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA METALIKS LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

279 (SC). He requested the Bench to decide the issue on merit. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of Authorities Below. 13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited and placed reliance upon. From the foregoing discussion, we note that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA METALIKS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

279 (SC). He requested the Bench to decide the issue on merit. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of Authorities Below. 13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited and placed reliance upon. From the foregoing discussion, we note that

TATA METALIKS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

279 (SC). He requested the Bench to decide the issue on merit. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of Authorities Below. 13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited and placed reliance upon. From the foregoing discussion, we note that

DISTRICT LAND & LAND REFORMS OFFICER, BURDWAN,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-4(2):TDS: BURDWAN, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 341 days in filing all the instant five appeal(s). These cases are therefore taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. We find that the assessee has challenged correctness of the lower authorities action raising the impugned Tax Collection at Source demands

DISTRICT LAND & LAND REFORMS OFFICER, BURDWAN,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-4(2):TDS: BURDWAN, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 341 days in filing all the instant five appeal(s). These cases are therefore taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. We find that the assessee has challenged correctness of the lower authorities action raising the impugned Tax Collection at Source demands

DISTRICT LAND & LAND REFORMS OFFICER, BURDWAN,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-4(2):TDS: BURDWAN, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 341 days in filing all the instant five appeal(s). These cases are therefore taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. We find that the assessee has challenged correctness of the lower authorities action raising the impugned Tax Collection at Source demands