DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. L & T FINANCE LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of L & T Finance Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Vs. 7Th Floor, A Wing, Block Bp, Kolkata Sector V, Kolkata-700091. (Pan: Aacca1963B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 10/Kol/2023 In Ita No.1781/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 L & T Finance Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 7Th Floor, A Wing, Block Bp, Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Sector V, Kolkata-700091. Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing of the appeal as well as the cross-objection and proceed to adjudicate them on merits. 3. Since the assessee has raised pure question of law in its Cross Objection, we are inclined to take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee before adjudicating on the appeal by the revenue. Ground of Cross Objection

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

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

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. 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

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay for 321 days is condoned and appeal is taken for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessment was completed with an addition of bogus purchase amount of ₹44,31,575/-, ₹21,40,740/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, ₹7,804/- the disallowance of business expenditure

SAMIRUDDIN KHAN,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 16.12.2019 is illegal, bad in law, inter alia

GOPMAHAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 38, MIDNAPUR

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merit. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. I.T.A. No.76/KOL/2024; AY 2015-16 “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer denying the deduction

GOPMAHAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 38, MIDNAPORE

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merit. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. I.T.A. No.76/KOL/2024; AY 2015-16 “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer denying the deduction

M/S KOHINOOR STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

condone the delay of eighteen (18) days. 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act against the assessee with an addition amount to Rs. 83,75,000/- u/s 68 of the Act related to transaction of share capital and share premium which was taken from different entities against the high

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

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(2), JALPAIGURI vs. M/S. DILIP KUMAR DAS & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. We first take up the cross-appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Civil contracts. Income of Rs.1,98,85,090/- declared in the return of income filed for Assessment Year

M/S. DILIP KUMAR DAS & SONS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-I(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. We first take up the cross-appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Civil contracts. Income of Rs.1,98,85,090/- declared in the return of income filed for Assessment Year