DCIT CC 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GREYFORCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nhearing.\nThe first issue raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of\naddition of ₹3,83,34,071/- by the Id. CIT (A) as made by the Id. AO\non account of freight payment exceeding to ₹35,000/- to a single\ntransporter in a single day in violation of Section 40A

SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI,MURSHIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 263 of the Act was not appealable before this Tribunal since he was not advised by his Tax Consultant about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised assessee to file an appeal, the assessee immediately took steps to file the appeal. Therefore, the delay caused. We note that delay was because of the wrong advice

SRI AMIT KUNDU,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

delay of 27 days in filing of the appeal. After perusing the petition for condonation, I am convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Hence, the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. I have heard Mr. Sunil Surana, ld. Counsel for the assessee and Mr. Dhrubajyoti

M/S. NEW PANJABI SAMRAT,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 49(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 40A(3). Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of one day on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. SUJIT ARYA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Sujit Arya Dcit P-3, Paramathesh Barun Sarani, 3, Govt Place West, Kolkata- New Cit Road, Central Metro, Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700073, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Actpa8796J Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Sujit Arya; A.Y. 2014-15 3. The issue raised in ground nos.1 & 2, is against the deletion of addition of ₹4,41,61,742/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of undisclosed income admitted by the assessee during survey u/s 133A

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 in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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 in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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 in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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 in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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 in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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 in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

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 in all appeals filed by the assessee, as these contain the identical grounds. 5. Although these appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2013-14 contained multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well

GOURI SHANKAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN.CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Gouri Shankar Jain Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates “Seben Brothers”, Vs. P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, 712105. Pan: Acvpj2347N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Is Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Dated 31.12.2015 For A.Y. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 100 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of The Said Delay & Keeping In View The Reasons Given Therein, We Are Satisfied That There Is A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 100 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal & Delay In Filing The Instant Appeal Is Accordingly Condoned.

delay in filing the instant appeal is accordingly condoned. 2 Gouri Shankar Jain A.Y. 2013-14 3. The assessee raised the issue in this appeal are as follows: i. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC failed to appreciate that none of the conditions precedent existed for the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

ACIT, CIR. 29, KOLKATA vs. SRI PRADIP MULLICK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rajpl Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal(सम" "ी राजपाल यादव उपा"" एवं "ी िगरीश अ"वाल लेखा सद" Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pradip Mullick Income-Tax, Circle-29, 106/11, Hazra Road, Vs. Kolkata. Bhowanipur, Kolkata-700 026. (Pan: Afcpm4492B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-8, Kolkata Vide

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit it for adjudication. 4. Ground taken by the department are reproduced as under: “1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in allowing the cash deposit amounting to Rs.13,77,000/- into his savings bank

I.T.O WD - 41(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI ASHOK KR SHAW, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The first issue in this appeal of revenue, is against the order CIT(A), in deleting the addition made by AO by invoking the provisions of section 40A

M/S. KENDWA PACHWAI SHOP,ASANSOL vs. ITO,WARD-2(2), ASANSOL. , ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

40A(3) and passed the assessment order under section 143(3) on 22.12.2016. 3. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that notices were issued more than six times. These notices were sent to the assessee

M/S TOPSI KENDA C. S. SHOP,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-1(3), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1264/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Topsi Kenda C.S. Shop -Vs- Ito, Ward-1(3), Asansol [Pan: Aabft 9317 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal before us and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The first issue to be decided in the appeal of the assessee is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case

SRI TUM NATH SHAW,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-2(3), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

delay condoned. 3. At the outset itself, the Ld. A.R Shri Soumitra Choudhury submitted that the appeal of the assessee is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the previous assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05 in ITA Nos. 2043 to 2047/Kol/2017 dated 31.12.2018. According to the Ld. A.R since the entire additions