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

43(5), even if the assessee claim so. f) The assessee contended that the business of the assessee company is one of single composite business, though technically it is possible for the assessee to segregate operational results of different transactional segments as narrated above in the para (I) above, yet in real term, the business of the assessee is composite

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

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

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

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

HAYDEN HALT INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2024-25

43,93,042/- and donation/gifts at Rs. 22,52,059/-. According to the Ld. CIT(E), these facts proved that the activities of the applicant/assessee had already commenced during F.Y. 2020-21. The Ld. CIT(E) was of the view that since the assessee had filed the application in Form No. 10AB under Section 80G(5

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GUINESS SECURITES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1712/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal of the revenue reads as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A ) erred in law in allowing the loss of Rs 34,61,912/- on speculative transactions to be adjusted with profit from non speculative business. 2. Whether on the facts

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAIMA EQUITIES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in treating the share trading loss of Rs. 2,07,38,602/- as normal business loss instead of speculation loss in the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT, CIR.-49(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWANATH PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. We note that ground no. 4 of revenue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing the impugned order in violation of Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), wherein the Ld. CIT(A) according to Revenue

M/S. RAINA COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned on the ground that the delay falls under Covid\nperiod and the reasons for the delay is bona fide and genuine. The ld.\ncounsel for the assessee also submitted that the assessee has uploaded\nall the information and details before the 1d. CIT(A) along with a written\nsubmission and therefore, the order may kindly be passed on merit

SATYANARAYAN HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.444/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay of 1472 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,64,00,000/- made by the AO on account of share capital including share premium by wrongly invoking the provisions of section

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

AASHIRWAD VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay and take up the matter for adjudication. 3. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. (a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 85,62,453/- as against the claim of set off of loss of Rs. 35,62,453/- in commodity trading. (b) For that

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The revised ground of appeal raised by the revenue is as under: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the loss in purchase and sale of shares of other companies including trading

MR. DEBABRATA DATTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

43 days. Condonation application has been filed by the assessee. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the assessee was prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

43,633/- Business or Profession Adjustment as per TPO-2, Rs.112,64,51,330 5 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healthcare Limited Kolkata’s order dated 31.10.2019 Business Income Rs.504,55,94,963/- Income from Other Rs. 3,24,716/- Soources Total Income Rs.504,59,19,679/- Less: Deduction under Rs.391,92,47,980/- Chapter-VIA Assessed Income Rs.112