BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

282 days in filing of the appeal. 3. On the other hand, the ld. D/R opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. We have duly considered the rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. 5. Sub-section

NAXALBARI VIVEKANANDA SEBA BHARATY,NAXALBARI, DARJELING vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra & Naxalbari Vivekananda Seba Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri, Bharaty, 10B, Middleton Road, C/O. M/S Salarpuria, Jajodia & Kolkata - 700071 Co., 3Rd Floor, Laha Paint Vs House, 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata - 700072 (Pan: Aadtn7438E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay of 37 days is hereby condoned and the appeal is adjudicated on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned CIT(E) in Form No. 10AD, rejecting the application for registration under section

NAXALBARI VIVEKANANDA SEBA BHARATY,NAXALBARI, DARJEELING vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra & Naxalbari Vivekananda Seba Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri, Bharaty, 10B, Middleton Road, C/O. M/S Salarpuria, Jajodia & Kolkata - 700071 Co., 3Rd Floor, Laha Paint Vs House, 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata - 700072 (Pan: Aadtn7438E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay of 37 days is hereby condoned and the appeal is adjudicated on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned CIT(E) in Form No. 10AD, rejecting the application for registration under section

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

282 of the Income Tax Act read with Rules 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Finally, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 251 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone

TOLLYGUNGE ESTATES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

282 of the Act now and thus, rejected the application for condonation of delay. He further noted that the assessee had admitted that the order/intimation was posted on the e-filing portal and thus the assessee I.T.A. No.: 941/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tollygunge Estates (P) Ltd. was very much aware of the intimation/order and had access to the intimation/order

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3985 & 3986/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vimala, Vs Income Tax Officer, No.16, 2Nd Cross Perumal Raja Ward-5, Garden, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Pondicherry – 605010. Pan: Acppv7834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. N. Arjun Raj – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 18.03.2025 & 19.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we also find that ld.CIT(A) issued notices through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3985 & 3986/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vimala, Vs Income Tax Officer, No.16, 2Nd Cross Perumal Raja Ward-5, Garden, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Pondicherry – 605010. Pan: Acppv7834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. N. Arjun Raj – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 18.03.2025 & 19.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we also find that ld.CIT(A) issued notices through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions

PEE KAY VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a resident Indian Company, filed its return of income electronically on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 8,080/-. The case was selected for complete (CASS) scrutiny assessment as per existing norms

M/S PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. In view of the above, we decided to proceed and to adjudicate the matter on the basis of materials available on record. The assessee in Ground Nos.1 & 2 has challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 5. Briefly stated

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3) The assessee has taken only one ground of appeal in form 36 objecting that the Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law for dismissing the appeal and confirming the assessment order without considering materials on record. 4) Brief facts of the case as emerging from

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DURGAPUR

In the result the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ]

condoning the delay. 4. The common issue involved in these two appeals is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by deleting the addition of Rs.4,42,23,282/- under the head interest on Government loan on the ground that the same does not fall under

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DURGAPUR

In the result the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ]

condoning the delay. 4. The common issue involved in these two appeals is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by deleting the addition of Rs.4,42,23,282/- under the head interest on Government loan on the ground that the same does not fall under

M/S AUROPLAS GOLD PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S - RANISATI DEALCOMM PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year 2008-09 M/S. Auroplas Gold Pvt. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd.,(Formerly Known As M/S. Kolkata-Ii, Ranisati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.) C/O Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., Aayakarbhawan, 7, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- P-7, Chowringhee Square, 700072. Kolkata – 700 069. Pan: Aaecr 0440 C Assessment Year 2008-09 Sheetal City Realtors Pvt. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., C/O Poddar & Kolkata-Ii, Aayakarbhawan, Associates, 9/12, Lalbazar Street, ‘Mercantile Building; P-7, Chowringhee Square, 1St Floor, Block-D, Kolkata- Kolkata – 700 069. 700001. Pan: Aabce 8664 L Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S. Subhdhan Commodities Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., C/O, Salarpuria Kolkata-Iii, Jajodia & Co., 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, 1

delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits. ITA Nos. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 and 1498/Kol/13 & ITA No.1251 & 981/Kol/14 & ITA No. 171/Kol/15 2. Through these appeals, different assessees assail the correctness of separate orders passed by the Commissioners of Income-tax (CIT) u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called

DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BHUBRIGHAT TEA CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Dcit, Cicle-4(1), V/S. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. P-7, Chowringhee Pvt. Ltd. 6D, Shyamkunj, Square, Kolkata-69 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 2972 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivnd Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-10-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 23.01.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 17.12.2008 For Assessment Year 2006-07. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Cess On Green Leaf Of Rs.1172020/- Is An Allowable Expenditure Ignoring The Fact That Green Leaf Is Attributable To Agriculture Activities Which Is Taxable Under State Agriculture Income Tax Beyond The Purview Of Central Income Tax & As Per Rule 8 Only 40% Of The Composite Income Is Taxable Under Central Income Tax & Moreover On The Same Issue As Slp Is Pending Before Apex Court. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Employees Contribution To Pf Of Rs.244399/- Is Allowed If Deposited Before Filing Of Return, Ignoring The Fact That

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. First issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for an amount of ₹11,72,020/- on account of cess on green leaf. 4. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a private limited company and engaged

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. These three appeals filed by the different assessee’s emanate from a common search conducted at their premises, involves common and identical issues, therefore, appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, since facts remain similar and the grounds