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

41,876/-. The assessee also filed form no. 10 online on 29.08.2018, in respect of such accumulation. The assessee filed condonation petition for 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

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

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

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

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

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

BEEYU OVERSEAS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT-CIR.4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal which pertains to the pandemic of COVID-19 and thus admit it for adjudication. 3. The solitary ground of appeal taken by the assessee relates to disallowance of depreciation allowance claimed by the assessee of Rs.1,34,95,087/- (erroneously printed as Rs.1,34,91,087/- in the assessment order). 4. Brief facts

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

DCIT, CENTRAL -4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH AUTO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the ensuing paras.\nThe issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of Id. CIT (A)\ndeleting the addition of ₹7,57,50,000/- as made by the Id. AO in\nrespect of unsecured loans by treating the same as unexplained cash\ncredit u/s 68 of the Act.\n3.1. The facts

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal

ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law to hold that disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D will not apply where no exempt income is received

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTHAN GUM & CHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

41,712/-. The Ld. CIT(A) appreciating the strong evidences of the assessee held that it had sufficient own funds to make investments in shares and debt funds of mutual funds and deleted the disallowance made under second limb of Rule 8D(2). However, he upheld the disallowance made under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. Aggrieved