D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. 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

UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. 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

UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. 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

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. 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

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 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum

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

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

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

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 VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

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

condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.\n\n4. It was the submission by the Id. AR that the Assessing Officer had\nreceived certain information that the assessee has received\naccommodation entries of Rs.10 lakhs and consequently initiated\nreopening proceedings. It was the submission that the assessee had\nresponded to the reopening proceedings. The Assessing Officer did not\ndispose

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

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.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the circumstances, e-Assessment Unit of the Department had proceeded with the framing of best judgement assessment order vide order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act, at a total income of Rs.22,19,260/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.19

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.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the circumstances, e-Assessment Unit of the Department had proceeded with the framing of best judgement assessment order vide order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act, at a total income of Rs.22,19,260/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.19

M/S. GARG BROTHERS 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

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

M/S. SPAN FOUNDATION 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

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 12A(1

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 12A(1

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