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

ARYA ROADWAYS CO.PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA [NEW ITO, WARD - 12(1), KOLKATA], KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2010-11 Arya Roadways Co Pvt V/S. Ito Ward-3(3), [New Ltd., Tivoli Court, Block-B, Ito Ward-12(1)] Aayakar Bhavana, 7Th Flat-93, 1C, Ballygunge Circular Road, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 019 Square, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaeca 9139 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Brijesh Kr. Singh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Singh, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata’S Order Dated 21.02.2017 Passed In Case No.385/Cit(A)-15/15-16/3(3)/R&T/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Sides. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Two Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal. It Firstly Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing / Adding Its Freight Charges Of ₹11,68,46,218/- As Well As Loading / Unloading Charges Of ₹10,87,385/- Paid To Various Parties On

condone the delay in sending ITRV. In my opinion, online return filing is complete only when verification regarding filing of online return is sent to CPC, in the Form of ITRV. Non-receipt of ITRV makes the online return non-est. Thus R.M. Logistics (Prop: Saswata Nayak), in effect, has not filed any return and situation in his case

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

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

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty - and-interest which has accrued fill dale. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the Department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal

TATA METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty - and-interest which has accrued fill dale. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the Department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

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

279,79,306 and ₹170,64,590/-; respectively as deleted in the CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion. The same reads as under:- “20. DECISION: 1. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant-company in the light of the adjustments made by the Ld. TPO/ AO. The question involved ill the present ground is the determination

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

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

279,79,306 and ₹170,64,590/-; respectively as deleted in the CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion. The same reads as under:- “20. DECISION: 1. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant-company in the light of the adjustments made by the Ld. TPO/ AO. The question involved ill the present ground is the determination

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

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

279,79,306 and ₹170,64,590/-; respectively as deleted in the CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion. The same reads as under:- “20. DECISION: 1. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant-company in the light of the adjustments made by the Ld. TPO/ AO. The question involved ill the present ground is the determination

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

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, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay and admit these cross objections filed by assessee. 25. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties and perusing the judicial decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We note that the education cess is allowable for deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. For this, we rely on the judgment

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

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

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

SENCO GOLD LTD AS SUCCESSOR TO SENCO GOLD IMPEX PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT - 4, 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