LINDE INDIA LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Linde India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Boc India Limited) Income Tax, Circle-11(1), “Oxygen House”, P-43, Vs. Kolkata. Taratala Road, Kolkata-700 088, West Bengal. (Pan: Aaacb2528H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay placed on record, we note that assessee has claimed that the impugned order was neither received by the assessee on its registered e-mail ID nor by post. Further, it was also not uploaded in the Income tax E-Portal until 15.03.2023. However, in the Income Tax Portal the date of upload of DIN letter is mentioned

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 4. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that he was invoking his liberty under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 in regard to the issue which has been held against the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBEY MINING PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AKA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMAUTAR GROURISARIA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDRADEV VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAND TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PASUPATI COMMERCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

M/S V.A.R.ALLOY & STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHARA VINIMAY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALISSA NIRMANS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1-(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2589/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 4Th Floor, Room No.3, New Kolkata B.K.Market, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.07.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Shri Pankaj Pandey, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 79 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, Delay Of 79 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Dr That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Originally Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was Reopened By Issuing Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Dated

delay of 79 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. DR that the return filed by the assessee was originally processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the assessment was reopened by issuing of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support