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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI ARUN KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-48(1). KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.2250/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Arun Kr. Jhunjhunwala. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-48(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acopj 2610 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri M.K.Biswas, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act ‘) dated 23.12.2011 for the Asst Year 2009-10. 2. At the outset, there is a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee by 35 days for which a delay condonation petition has been filed by the assessee. It was stated that the assessee

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 CARGO HINDLING CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-28(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condonation of delay, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. C.LT.(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.LT.(A) was wrong in not considering the merit of the case, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. C.LT.(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 5. For that

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without calling for Remand Report. (5). Grounds raised by the assesse in ITA No. 938/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11, relates to action of the Assessing Officer in treating Government securities within the meaning of “Bonds” for the purpose of third proviso to section 48 of the Act, and erred in dismissing the assessee’s claim

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without calling for Remand Report. (5). Grounds raised by the assesse in ITA No. 938/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11, relates to action of the Assessing Officer in treating Government securities within the meaning of “Bonds” for the purpose of third proviso to section 48 of the Act, and erred in dismissing the assessee’s claim

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

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