PAHALAMPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Ltd. 4. It was the submission that the only issue in the appeal is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein the assessee has been denied the benefit of deduction

THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICIAL SCIENCE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1, authorizing the Commissioner of Income Tax to admit belated applications for condonation of delay in filing of the of Income Tax to admit belated applications for condonation of delay in filing of the of Income Tax to admit belated applications for condonation of delay in filing of the return of income

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

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

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

5. The order is passed as per the provisions of section 143(3)/263 read with section 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Copy of Draft Assessment Order is issued to the assessee. Tax payable as per calculation sheet. 6. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

LOYOLA HIGH SCHOOL,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after

AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay

NITDAA FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(E), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishranitdaa Foundation, Commissioner Of Income Fe 261, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Tax (Exemption), Kolkata, Vs West Bengal -700106 10B, Middleton Row, (Pan: Aadtn2308K) West Bengal - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the I.T. Act 1961 on 6.5.2022 along with annexures.” 5. In view of the submission made we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for the delay which was neither mala fide/intentional nor 3 Nitdaa Foundation has given any benefit to the assessee. Hence, the delay of 77 days is hereby condoned

BISWAJIT ROY,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , JALPAIGURI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

1 SCC 572), it was held that it is not at all a fit case where in the anxiety to render justice to a party so that a just cause is not defeated, a pragmatic view should be taken by the court in considering sufficing cause for condonation of the delay under Section 5

VKPM SEVA TRUST, KOLKATA vs. CIT(E), KOLAKTA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

condone the delay. 5. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the Counsels of the respective parties, we have perused the case of the assessee which is as follows: The brief fact of the case of the assessee is that the assessee is a charitable Trust registered/approved u/s 80G(5) of the Act since 2016. However, an amendment was brought into

TRIO TREND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the only issue in these appeals are against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming disallowance of employees’ contribution made to the respective funds of the Government under PF & ESI Act. According to the authorities below, since

TRIO TREND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the only issue in these appeals are against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming disallowance of employees’ contribution made to the respective funds of the Government under PF & ESI Act. According to the authorities below, since

MD. MUJIBUR RAHAMAN,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

delay is condoned after hearing the parties. 3. The first ground of appeal of assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made in respect of PF & ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) of Rs.4

ACIT, CIR-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Acit, Circle 1(2), Kolkata Vs. The Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Hudco Building, 15N, Nellie Square, R.No.14, 7Th Floor, Kolkata – Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700 700 069. 087. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct 8820 B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

condone the delay and admit the Cross-objection for hearing. 4. The grievances raised by the Revenue in ITA No.2305/Kol/2017, for A.Y.2011-12, are as follows: “1.Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing a claim of Rs.3,28,00,000/-, disregarding the fact that there had been

THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Acit, Circle 1(2), Kolkata Vs. The Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Hudco Building, 15N, Nellie Square, R.No.14, 7Th Floor, Kolkata – Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700 700 069. 087. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct 8820 B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

condone the delay and admit the Cross-objection for hearing. 4. The grievances raised by the Revenue in ITA No.2305/Kol/2017, for A.Y.2011-12, are as follows: “1.Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing a claim of Rs.3,28,00,000/-, disregarding the fact that there had been

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIION),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. (h) In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice; it would be a ground to condone the delay

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. (h) In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice; it would be a ground to condone the delay

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

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 the claim of the assessee u/s 11(2) of the Act. 05. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal