M/S. JEEVANDARSHI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 509/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 4Th Floor Vs 9, India Exchange Place Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj8585A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/08/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Had Disallowed The Carry Forward Of Business Loss Of Rs.72,96,597/- On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019 Whereas The Due Date Of Filing Was On 31/10/2019. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 01/11/2019 Declaring Total Loss At Rs.72,96,596/-. The Same Was Processed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Dt. 30/04/2020, Wherein The Claim Of The Assessee Of Carry Forward Of Loss To Subsequent Year Was Rejected On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019. 4. Aggrieved The Assesse Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Simply Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By

delay of 46 minutes in filing the return of income, a deduction of Rs. 2,34,41,162/- is denied to assessee. 7. Section 80AC provides that deduction u/s 80IC shall be allowed to assessee if the return is filed on or before the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139. However, section 139(4) carves

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-12-2017 making additions of Rs.3,55,92,450/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect

NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 263 order of the ld CIT before the tribunal together with a delay condonation petition as the assessee has got a good case and fair chance of succeeding in appeal. In support of this, the ld AR relied on the following decisions for condonation of delay :- (a) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case

MUKUND RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 263 order of the ld CIT before the tribunal together with a delay condonation petition as the assessee has got a good case and fair chance of succeeding in appeal. In support of this, the ld AR relied on the following decisions for condonation of delay :- (a) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case

THE GOODHOPE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(3) (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 253 of the IT Act shall be within sixty days of the date of the service of the appellate order and in the case of the assessee the date of service being the 9th May, 2024, the time limit for filing of appeal has expired on 8th of July, 2024. 3. That the issue of the assessee was exemption

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

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

41(1), Nadia,\nKrishnanagar, Nadia - 741101\n........................................................ Respondent\nAppearances by:\nAssessee represented by : P.K. Ray, Adv.\nTrideep Nayak, AR\nDepartment represented by : Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR\nDate of concluding the hearing : 24.11.2025\nDate of pronouncing the order : 01.12.2025\nORDER\nPER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\n1. In this case, there is a delay of 532 days in filing

PABITRA BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-33(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the assessee on merit. 3. In Ground No. 1, the assessee has disputed the addition of Rs.3,39,066/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. I.T.A. No. 734/KOL./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 6 CIT(Appeals) under section 41

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BUDGE BUDGE REFINERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. These three appeals pertain to same assessee, different assessment years, common issues involved, therefore, therefore, all the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Revenue appeal in ITA No. 388/Kol/2014, pertaining

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BUDGE BUDGE REFINERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. These three appeals pertain to same assessee, different assessment years, common issues involved, therefore, therefore, all the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Revenue appeal in ITA No. 388/Kol/2014, pertaining

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BUDGE BUDGE REFINERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. These three appeals pertain to same assessee, different assessment years, common issues involved, therefore, therefore, all the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Revenue appeal in ITA No. 388/Kol/2014, pertaining

M/S SIKAR ZILLA WELFARE TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Sikar Zilla Welfare Income Tax Officer, Trust Ward 1(3), Exempt 1A, Sikar Bhawan, Vs. Ashutosh Dey Lane, Kolkata-400071 Kolkata-700006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts3808D Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024

condoned and it is directed that the appellant be allowed exemption as would be due to him as per law. The ld. AO is directed accordingly.” M/s Sikar Zilla Welfare Trust; A.Y. 2018-19 05. Similar issue was also deal with by this Tribunal in Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust (supra), where also the facts are almost identical and the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata M/S. Manaksia Limited 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Manaksia Limited Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, Aca Revenue By : Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, Cit, D/R

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though it is not a notice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

NEHA HRIDAYA,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2462/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Neha Hridaya,…………………………….…..………Appellant Ic Viceroy Duke Gardens, Raghunathpur, Kolkata-700059, W.B. [Pan:Aofph7597L] -Vs.- Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru,…..……………………..Respondent Karnataka, Pin Code No. 560500

section 249(2) of the Act. She further submitted that the she was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Due to that, the ld. CIT(Appeals) decided the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. CIT- 14, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. Assessee has filed grounds of appeal which are argumentative in nature and elaborate. Direction was given to the assessee vide order sheet dated 05.09.2022, to file precise grounds. In compliance to the said direction, revised precise grounds of appeal were filed on 16.09.2022 which are nine in number. From