I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

section 40(a)(ia)(B) of the Act." 2 M/s.Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 Ground No.19 : "That the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds of appeal, if any, at or before the time of hearing and/or alter, modify, reframe any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing." 2. At the very outset, we find

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 10 days are condoned. 17. The revenue raised ground no-1 as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-A erred in law in holding that PF contribution of Rs.1,88,075/- deposited after due date and grace period. 18. The brief facts relating to ground no-1 are that the Assessee

SHRI JOYDEB CHANDRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee-ITA No

condone the delay in filing the above appeal. 3. Ground nos. 2 to 7 relating to confirmation of additions of Rs.36,15,736/-, Rs.7,75,362/- & Rs.9,60,000/- under the heads ‘labour charges’, ‘installation charges’ & ‘hire charges’. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a government contractor. The assessee filed his return

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMRI HOSPITAL LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of assessee’s CO is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. The inter-connected issue raised by assessee in its CO is whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in applying the provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act though the assessee has declared loss in its income return under the normal provision of the Act. 6. At the outset

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40

ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIR-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40

M/S ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR - 2(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40

M/S SHALIMAR CONSTRUCTION,DARJEELING vs. D.C.I.T, CIR-2, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on ground No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2443/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-2011) M/S Shalimar Construction, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Matigara, Shivmandir, Po:Kadamtala, Siliguri, West Bengal. District : Darjeeling-734011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawfs 5786 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsian, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri, In Appeal No.03/Cit(A)/Slg/2013-14, Dated 29.05.2013, 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 01.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its E-Return Of Income On 14/10/2010, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.12,36,040/-. The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S 143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Disallowance On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure Rs.5,98,492 ( Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee Without Debit Balance In The Cash Book) & Disallowed Rs.5,73,950/-( Machine Hire Charges Paid Without Deducting Tds). 3. The Captioned Appeal Is Time Barred For 54 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit. After Hearing Ld Ar

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee observing the followings :- Observation of CIT(A) for ground No. 4 raised by assessee I have carefully examined and considered the submission

M/S BIRENDRA CHANDRA SAHA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-39, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

delay is to be condoned and we condone the same. 8. Now coming to the merits of the case, challenge is only in respect of the addition made by the ld. CIT under section 263 order to a tune of Rs.95,70,953/-. According to the ld. CIT, the unsecured loan advanced by M/s. Mascot Woodcraft Pvt. Limited

TAPAN KUMAR DUTTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

delay of 81 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is, therefore, condoned and this appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merit. 1 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Tapan Kumar Dutta 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal:- “(1)(a) For that

BASTUHARA SAHAYATA SAMITI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

condonation of delay in submission of Form 10 before the ld. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata which was rejected by the ld. CIT vide order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act dated 20.12.2018. It was noted that the claim has not mentioned in the ITR 7 and in the resolution passed in the Executive Committee meeting, the fund

SHREYANS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 2454/KOL/2024, AY 2011-12: “1. That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

SHREYANS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 2454/KOL/2024, AY 2011-12: “1. That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

GPT MARECOM (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2 , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT to have invoked the revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act without fulfilling the essential condition precedent as prescribed u/s. 263 of the Act. 4. In the impugned order the Ld. Pr. CIT has found