DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

48,04,394/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who noted that there was a delay of 157 days in filing the appeal. He has gone through the judicial pronouncements on condonation of delay. In the course of the appeal, the assessee

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

section 48 of the Act, and erred in dismissing the assessee’s claim for indexed loss of Rs. 31,49,09,561/­. (6). Additional ground raised by the assessee in ITA No.937/Kol/2018 for A.Y.2010­ 11 reads as under: “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below erred in not allowing deduction

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

section 48 of the Act, and erred in dismissing the assessee’s claim for indexed loss of Rs. 31,49,09,561/­. (6). Additional ground raised by the assessee in ITA No.937/Kol/2018 for A.Y.2010­ 11 reads as under: “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below erred in not allowing deduction

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CER-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 11. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. Commissioner has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and setting aside the second reassessment order dated 30.09.2019. Before adverting to the show-cause notice issued under section 263, we deem it appropriate to take

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 11. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. Commissioner has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and setting aside the second reassessment order dated 30.09.2019. Before adverting to the show-cause notice issued under section 263, we deem it appropriate to take

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal, out of which Ground No. 2 is the substantial ground of appeal. In this ground, the grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of ld. Assessing Officer vide which deduction of interest

GIRIK ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD 6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. KuntalKumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered tliat in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. 14. The only effective issue raised in the grounds of appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law in upholding the order of AO wherein the AO has denied the benefit of exemption claimed

A B CAPITAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32, , KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merit after hearing the parties. 3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, ………………………………” 1.1. Considering the reasons advanced for justifying the said delay, this appeal is admitted for adjudication. I.T.A

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

VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble, Kz & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2012-13 Vasupujya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd……...…...........................................................……………….…......Appellant 35, C.R. Avenue Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Aaacv 8958 M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2) Kolkata……….....................……........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, F.C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Imokaba Jamir, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 10Th, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp, Kz:-

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessing Officer, therefore, invoked Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’) and worked out the expenses incurred in relation to the earning of exempt income at Rs.1,41,36,211/-. He, however, restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of business expenses/loss claimed

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

condone the impugned delay of 30 days in filing. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in its instant appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.109,80,30,873/- on transfer of Government Securities after applying Cost Inflation Index

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

LUDLOW JUTE COMPANY LIMITED PROVIDENT FUND,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

48,689/-, hence necessary direction may please be given to the A.O. to modify the computation of interest u/s 234B. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on the disposal of the appeal there will be reduction and/or deletion of interest u/s 234C of Rs. 9,01,470/-, hence necessary direction may please be given

K T HANDLOOMS, BURDWAN,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1860/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 K.T. Handlooms,……………………..………...……Appellant R.B. Basu Sarak, Sadarghat, Burdwan-713103, West Bengal [Pan:Aaofk4187G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(1), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Bishewar Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 21, 2025

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of bed-sheets, bed-covers, pillow covers, curtains, mats and other related handloom items and filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.7,86,260/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS