DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA MUMBAI TRUCK TERMINAL LTD, HOWRAH

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for further adjudication. 7.1. The issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rental income from godowns derived by the assessee is to be taxed as business income of the assessee or as income from house property. 7.2. The facts

ACIT, CIR.-29,, KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CR. SOCIETY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

451 days (AY 2013-14) and 462 days (AYs. 2012-13 & 2014-15) respectively. And all these assessee’s appeals are time barred by 70 days. After hearing both the sides and perusing the reasons given in the petition for condoning the delay which was mainly due to Covid-19 pandemic, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-28, KOLAKTA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

451 days (AY 2013-14) and 462 days (AYs. 2012-13 & 2014-15) respectively. And all these assessee’s appeals are time barred by 70 days. After hearing both the sides and perusing the reasons given in the petition for condoning the delay which was mainly due to Covid-19 pandemic, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-28, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

451 days (AY 2013-14) and 462 days (AYs. 2012-13 & 2014-15) respectively. And all these assessee’s appeals are time barred by 70 days. After hearing both the sides and perusing the reasons given in the petition for condoning the delay which was mainly due to Covid-19 pandemic, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals

ACIT, CIR.-29, KOLKATA vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMP.CO.OP.CR. SOCIETY LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

451 days (AY 2013-14) and 462 days (AYs. 2012-13 & 2014-15) respectively. And all these assessee’s appeals are time barred by 70 days. After hearing both the sides and perusing the reasons given in the petition for condoning the delay which was mainly due to Covid-19 pandemic, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals

ACIT, CIR.-29, KOLKATA vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMP.CO.OP.CR. SOCIETY LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

451 days (AY 2013-14) and 462 days (AYs. 2012-13 & 2014-15) respectively. And all these assessee’s appeals are time barred by 70 days. After hearing both the sides and perusing the reasons given in the petition for condoning the delay which was mainly due to Covid-19 pandemic, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO.-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-28, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

451 days (AY 2013-14) and 462 days (AYs. 2012-13 & 2014-15) respectively. And all these assessee’s appeals are time barred by 70 days. After hearing both the sides and perusing the reasons given in the petition for condoning the delay which was mainly due to Covid-19 pandemic, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals

ITO WARD-41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAMAL BANERJEE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 6. It is the argument of the ld. D.R. that the learned CIT erred in holding the income from Bani Bhawan as the income from business instead of income from house property, since the assessee is residing in a part of the building and let out the remaining

ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE CALCUTTA SWIMMING CLUB, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

condoning the delay. On the facts as narrated above, there is no delay in filing the appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case of assessee are that the assessee being the Calcutta Swimming Club, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 76,46,760/-. The case of the assessee was selected

DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FEMINA STOCK MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 850/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata Femina Stock Management Company Vs Ltd. 5Th Floor, Room No. 2 P23/24, Radha Bazar Street Tea Board Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacf3689H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 21, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 I.T.A. No. 850/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Femina Stock Management Company Ltd. “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred to delete the addition of Rs.33,19,33,000/- added

D.C.I.T, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NEWDEAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

delay is therefore condoned and these appeals of the revenue are being disposed of on merit. 3. The solitary common issue involved in these appeals of the revenue relates to the deletion by the Ld. CIT (A) of the disallowance made by the AO on account of interest expenditure. 4. The assessee in the present case is an investment company

ITO, WARD -47(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMIT JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1541/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O., Ward-47(2), Kolkata -Vs- Sumit Jaiswal [Pan: Alupj 0779 L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 2 Sumit Jaiswal A.Yr. 2011-12 3 The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in estimating the profit @ 8% of undisclosed contractual receipts of Rs. 9,16,500/- as against the estimation made

DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No. 451/Kol/2013 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 1622/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09

section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without first recording that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim as regards the claim that “no expenditure” was made by the assessee. Challenging the order of the tribunal, the present appeal has been filed. We have heard Mr.Bhowmik and are of the opinion that no point

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well that of assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shrip.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

delay of 51 days on the part of the Revenue in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is accordingly condoned. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 8. Now we shall take up the appeal of the Revenue which involves a solitary issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(A) of the addition made