ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORTUNE INTERFINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

delay is condoned. At this juncture the matter is taken up for admission hearing. Since we have dismissed already an appeal being ITAT 147 of 2010 which has also been impugned here on the self-same facts· and circumstances and in this case also it appears that assessing officer deleted the claim of Rs.10,06,974/· on account of loss

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 98/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 669 days is condoned, and the matter is taken for adjudication. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1) That the order of the Ld CIT (A) is bad in law and on facts of the case. 2) That the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming derivative Loss of Rs 6179816/- alleging to be bogus

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation under the\nexisting provisions of the Act. The CCSIT/DGsIT shall examine the following while\ndeciding such applications-\n(i) the delay in furnishing the return of income within the due date under sub-\nsection (1) of section 139 of the Act was caused due to circumstances beyond the\ncontrol of the assessee with appropriate documentary evidence

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, "speculative transaction" has been defined to mean a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity is settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of such commodity. However, as stated above, the assessee was not a dealer in foreign exchange. The assessee was an exporter

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, "speculative transaction" has been defined to mean a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity is settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of such commodity. However, as stated above, the assessee was not a dealer in foreign exchange. The assessee was an exporter

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, "speculative transaction" has been defined to mean a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity is settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of such commodity. However, as stated above, the assessee was not a dealer in foreign exchange. The assessee was an exporter

SRI DEBASISH ROY CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2279/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-2008) Sri Debasish Roy Chowdhury, Vs. Acit, Circle-52, Kolkata 46E/1, New Ballygunge Road, 2, Gariahat Road(South), Kolkata-39 Kolkata-68 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipr 7212 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Saswati Mitra(Dutta), Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit,Srdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R

section provides that Commissioner (Appeal) may admit an appeal after expiration of the said period if he satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. While it is true, that the power of condoning delay should be exercised in a liberal manner, for that the basic condition, that sufficient cause for delay should

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee as well as appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

delay of condonation. This, in our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, i.e., in this case deserves to be considered and same is condoned. First we take up assessee’s grounds of appeal in ITA No.786/Kol/2013. 3. The issue raised by assessee in ground number 1,2,3 and 4 is that ld CIT(A) erred

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

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The assessee has assailed the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and consequent order as invalid and bad in law as the same are barred by limitation.the assessee has also challenged the order passed u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment is neither erroneous

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 427/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6(2), Kolkata Vs 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber Vs Tax, Circle-6(2), Kolkata 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/06/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross-Objection Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 965 Days In Filing The Cross-Objection By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A 2

condone the delay and proceed to admit the same for hearing. 3. First, we will take up the revenue’s appeal. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading, manufacturing and investment. Loss of Rs.39,45,49,119/- declared in the e-return for Assessment Year 2009-10 furnished

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned. Ground No.1 & 2 – Vide Ground Nos.1 & 2, the assessee has 4. agitated the confirmation of addition of Rs.10,10,774/- made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions to section 43B of the Act for delay in depositing employees contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance. 5. Heard both the sides. At the outset, we note that

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

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

condone the delay and admit the\nappeals of the revenue for adjudication.\nA.Y. 2013-14\nCO No. 42/KOL/2025\n04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed,\nchallenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions\nenvisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

43(5) which broadly, and subject to certain exceptions which are not relevant for the purposes, cover the transactions in which a contract for sale and purchase of any commodity, including for stocks and securities is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips, It is th.us clear when an assessee carries