T & I GLOBAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condoned and appeal is admitted. 3. At the outset, we note that the ground of appeal relate to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.32,82,761/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate upon the matters. 3. Grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under:- Assessment Year: 2015-2016 (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment of INR 7,53,60,879 (later on rectified

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate upon the matters. 3. Grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under:- Assessment Year: 2015-2016 (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment of INR 7,53,60,879 (later on rectified

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) for the alleged delay in depositing the Employees Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance under the relevant Act but deposited before the due date of furnishing the return of income. I.T.A. No.387/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd 2 That the Learned Commissioner of Income

KAMAKSHI JUTE INDUSTRIES LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIC, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, ITA No. 1073/KOL/2023 is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

36(1)(va) read with Page 2 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 1073/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd. Section 2(24)(x) of the Act for delayed payments towards employees' contribution to PF&ESI. The employees' contribution to PF&ESI was made before due date of filing return of income but after the due date of the mentioned

M/S KIRITIKUNJ AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. On earlier occasion also, we adjudicated the hearing in the absence of assessee and thereafter a letter was received by us and we re-fix the appeal for hearing. Inspite

ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT , KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned.” Considering the reasons given in the said application, these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant is a local authority engaged in providing port services for over a century. It is functioning under the direct control and supervision of the Ministry of Shipping under the Union Govt. In the 4 years

ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned.” Considering the reasons given in the said application, these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant is a local authority engaged in providing port services for over a century. It is functioning under the direct control and supervision of the Ministry of Shipping under the Union Govt. In the 4 years

ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned.” Considering the reasons given in the said application, these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant is a local authority engaged in providing port services for over a century. It is functioning under the direct control and supervision of the Ministry of Shipping under the Union Govt. In the 4 years

ACIT , CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned.” Considering the reasons given in the said application, these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant is a local authority engaged in providing port services for over a century. It is functioning under the direct control and supervision of the Ministry of Shipping under the Union Govt. In the 4 years

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden thereon causes undue hardship to the Assessee and penalising multiple times under different laws for the same offence. 7. The Assessee was suffering from huge cash crunch during the relevant period and hence defaulted in depositing the statutory contributions within due dates but paid the contributions before filing

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden thereon causes undue hardship to the Assessee and penalising multiple times under different laws for the same offence. 7. The Assessee was suffering from huge cash crunch during the relevant period and hence defaulted in depositing the statutory contributions within due dates but paid the contributions before filing

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden thereon causes undue hardship to the Assessee and penalising multiple times under different laws for the same offence. 7. The Assessee was suffering from huge cash crunch during the relevant period and hence defaulted in depositing the statutory contributions within due dates but paid the contributions before filing

THE BARNAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CPC,BENGALURU , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 The Barnagore Jute Factory Plc Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata C/O. Subash Agarwal & Vs. Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. Pan: Aabct 0134 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

condoned and appeal is admitted. 3. The sole issue involved in this appeals is relating to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (CPC) u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI i.e. after the due date as provided under the respective welfare enactments

KAMAKSHI JUTE INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay in depositing the Employees Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance under the relevant Act but deposited before the due date of furnishing the return of income. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in confirming the addition of employee contribution to PF/ESI U/s 36(1)(va) when the due date of making

WESTERN CONGLOMERATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(4),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that for a tea manufacturing company, 60% of the income is treated as agricultural and exempt, while 40% is taxable. Therefore, the disallowance for delayed PF payment should be restricted to 40% of the taxable income.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["36(1)(va

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial