EXTENT D SERVICES ,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 24(1) , HOOGHLY

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.2668/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Extent D Services Vs. Acit, Circle-24(1), Kolkata. 1032, Rue-De-Corderie, Burabazar, Chandannagar, Hooghly. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfe6516B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & S.L. Kochar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6, Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.09.2018 Passed In Case No.Cit(A), Kol-6/10221/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Persued. 2. The Assessee’S Delay Of 18 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Stated To Be Attributable To Communication Gap & Compilation Of Necessary Records Is Condoned On Account Of No Objection From Revenue Side. 3. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance On Merits Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing/Adding Its Section 35(1)(Ii) Deduction Claim Of Rs.33,00,000/- Qua Contribution Made To M/S School Of Human Genetics

delay of 18 days in filing of the instant appeal stated to be attributable to communication gap and compilation of necessary records is condoned on account of no objection from Revenue side. 3. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance on merits seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing/adding its section 35(1)(ii

THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICIAL SCIENCE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay by the ld. CIT(E) and grant exemption to the assessee. He did so in the assessment order the ld. CIT(E) and grant exemption to the assessee. He did so in the assessment order the ld. CIT(E) and grant exemption to the assessee. He did so in the assessment order passed

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned and the case is taken up for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction, filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. 51,40,573/-. The case was accordingly processed u/s 143(1) accepting

LORD REAL ESTATE PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 10(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 102/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lord Real Estate Pvt. Ltd..........................................................................................................Appellant 12C, Chakraberia Road (North), Kolkata – 700 020. [Pan: Aaacl4476A] Vs Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata ..................………………………………………..........................Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate & Shri Aryan Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.S. Anand, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue: Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10, 2022 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm:

delay in submission of this appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal which may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be taken up for hearing and adjudication. vii. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to , abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 3 I.T.A. No. 102/Kol/2021 Assessment Year

ATUL KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay of 87 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT Appeal (NFAC) Delhi has totally ignored the stand of the Judiciary in many cases on the similar or identical issues involved as compared

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

condoned the delay. The one more factor, which was available before the Tribunal was that impugned order was open for debate and it is just a Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The rights in the hands of the appellant have not been crystallized. Therefore, the Tribunal made an elaborate discussion and held that such an order be termed

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

condone the delay and admit the appeals for\nadjudication.\n2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13:\n\"1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the sum of Rs.77,70,880/- incurred

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

condone the delay and admit the appeals for\nadjudication.\n2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13:\n“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the sum of Rs.77,70,880/- incurred

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

condone the delay and admit the appeals for\nadjudication.\n2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13:\n“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the sum of Rs.77,70,880/- incurred

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

condone the delay and admit the appeals for\nadjudication.\n2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13:\n“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the sum of Rs.77,70,880/- incurred

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. 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

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. 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

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J. K. TYRE & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Ground no.1 of revenue’s appeal is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in allowing bad debts written off. 4. Briefly stated facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee claimed deduction of an amount of Rs.28,31,143/- under the head “Bad Debts Written Off” while

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J. K. TYRE & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Ground no.1 of revenue’s appeal is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in allowing bad debts written off. 4. Briefly stated facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee claimed deduction of an amount of Rs.28,31,143/- under the head “Bad Debts Written Off” while

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2008. Subsequently the 2 M/s Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. assessee company filed its revised return of income on 9-12-2008 showing total loss at Rs.3

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1