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

DCIT, MIDDLETONTON ROW vs. BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE, BISHNUPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Bishnupur Public Education Institute Dcit 10B, Middleton Row, 5 Th Floor, Gopeswarpalli, Bishnupur, Vs. Kolkata-700071, West Bengal Bankura-722122, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtb4176D Assessee By : S/Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana & Dipak Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

condoning the delay in filing the form no.10 on 15.11.2018. However, the same was dismissed by the ld. CIT(E) on 20.12.2018. Finally, the ld. AO assessed the income at ₹3,80,90,390/- by rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 11(2) of the Act. 05. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal

TRIO TREND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the only issue in these appeals are against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming disallowance of employees’ contribution made to the respective funds of the Government under PF & ESI Act. According to the authorities below, since

TRIO TREND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the only issue in these appeals are against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming disallowance of employees’ contribution made to the respective funds of the Government under PF & ESI Act. According to the authorities below, since

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

MD. MUJIBUR RAHAMAN,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

condoned after hearing the parties. 3. The first ground of appeal of assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made in respect of PF & ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) of Rs.4,54,289/-. At the outset

D.C.I.T CIR - 55,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL HOMOEO LABORATORIES, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue raised the following grounds: “1. Ld. CIT(A) had erred on facts as well as in law in deleting addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) by disallowing expenditure of Rs.3,52,842/- [Carriage outward], Rs.126000/- [supervision charges], Rs.228,338/- [Commission] and Rs.12,37,460/- [overriding commission], particularly when

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

40 seeks to amend S. 92-F. Clause (iii-a) of S. 92-F is amended “so as to clarify that the activities mentioned in the said clause include the carrying out of any work in pursuance of a contract”. (emphasis supplied). This amendment takes effect retrospectively from 01.04.2002. Various other amendments also take place retrospectively. The Notes on Clauses

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

40 seeks to amend S. 92-F. Clause (iii-a) of S. 92-F is amended “so as to clarify that the activities mentioned in the said clause include the carrying out of any work in pursuance of a contract”. (emphasis supplied). This amendment takes effect retrospectively from 01.04.2002. Various other amendments also take place retrospectively. The Notes on Clauses

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

40 seeks to amend S. 92-F. Clause (iii-a) of S. 92-F is amended “so as to clarify that the activities mentioned in the said clause include the carrying out of any work in pursuance of a contract”. (emphasis supplied). This amendment takes effect retrospectively from 01.04.2002. Various other amendments also take place retrospectively. The Notes on Clauses

DCIT, CIR.-8(2), KOLKATA vs. NISSIN ABC LOGISTICS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Garg

section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of 123 days on the part of the Revenue in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Revenue has moved an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reason given

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

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

ARYA ROADWAYS CO.PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA [NEW ITO, WARD - 12(1), KOLKATA], KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2010-11 Arya Roadways Co Pvt V/S. Ito Ward-3(3), [New Ltd., Tivoli Court, Block-B, Ito Ward-12(1)] Aayakar Bhavana, 7Th Flat-93, 1C, Ballygunge Circular Road, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 019 Square, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaeca 9139 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Brijesh Kr. Singh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Singh, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata’S Order Dated 21.02.2017 Passed In Case No.385/Cit(A)-15/15-16/3(3)/R&T/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Sides. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Two Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal. It Firstly Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing / Adding Its Freight Charges Of ₹11,68,46,218/- As Well As Loading / Unloading Charges Of ₹10,87,385/- Paid To Various Parties On

40(a)(ia). Now let us take a look at these provisions: Section 201(1) along with first proviso reads as under:- Where any person, including the principal officer of a company,- (a) Who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provision of this Act; or (b) Referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192, being

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

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