SWARUP KUMAR SAHA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 50(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swarup Kumar Saha…............…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 40C/1, Jessore Road Barasat Kolkata – 700 124 [Pan : Algps 1418 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(2), Kolkata.………………………………...……...…………….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Provash Roy, Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 20Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not imply a pedantic approach

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

50. On the strength of all these decisions, he contended that there is no provision under section 10(23C) to condone the delay

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

50. On the strength of all these decisions, he contended that there is no provision under section 10(23C) to condone the delay

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

50. On the strength of all these decisions, he contended that there is no provision under section 10(23C) to condone the delay

UNICORN TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2613/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Unicorn Tradecom Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 1D, Canal Road, 1St Floor, Room No. 101, Kolkata-700053, West Bengal [Pan:Aabcu0224E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-7(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R

50 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone

ALLAHABAD BANK, NAKTALA BRANCH,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, TDS RG.57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1384/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Allahabad Bank, Vs. Jcit(Tds), Range-57, 10B, Middleton Row, 8Th Floor, Naktala Branch, 364/23A, Nsc Bose Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700040 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cala 06329 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tapas Dutta, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.138/Cit(A)-Xvi/Jcit,R-57/13-14/Kol, Dated 28.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Jt.Commissoner Of Income Tax-Tds (Ao),U/S.272A(2)(K)/274 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Quarterly Tds Returns Late Therefore The Assessing Officer (Tds) Imposed Penalty On The Assessee U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Act At Rs.50,336/- 3. The Captioned Appeal Is Time Barred By 32 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Said Appeal. The Assessee Explained The Reasons For Delay Stating That Assessee Is A Schedule Bank

50 days beyond the date of limitation specified in sub-section(2) of section 249 of the Act, without any sufficient cause, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned

NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 263 order of the ld CIT before the tribunal together with a delay condonation petition as the assessee has got a good case and fair chance of succeeding in appeal. In support of this, the ld AR relied on the following decisions for condonation of delay :- (a) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case

MUKUND RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 263 order of the ld CIT before the tribunal together with a delay condonation petition as the assessee has got a good case and fair chance of succeeding in appeal. In support of this, the ld AR relied on the following decisions for condonation of delay :- (a) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case

SHRI GOBINDO CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-50(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal constitution so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality. 13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough

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

50 days in ITA No.2245/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 and 52 days in ITA No.2196/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19, in filing the appeals by the department in support of which condonation petitions were filed. It was stated in the condonation petitions that the delay had occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities and accordingly, the delay

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

50 days in ITA No.2245/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 and 52 days in ITA No.2196/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19, in filing the appeals by the department in support of which condonation petitions were filed. It was stated in the condonation petitions that the delay had occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities and accordingly, the delay

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

50 days in ITA No.2245/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 and 52 days in ITA No.2196/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19, in filing the appeals by the department in support of which condonation petitions were filed. It was stated in the condonation petitions that the delay had occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities and accordingly, the delay

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

50 days in ITA No.2245/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 and 52 days in ITA No.2196/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19, in filing the appeals by the department in support of which condonation petitions were filed. It was stated in the condonation petitions that the delay had occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities and accordingly, the delay

ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata M/S. Manaksia Limited 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Manaksia Limited Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, Aca Revenue By : Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, Cit, D/R

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though it is not a notice

POONAM MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

50 days only your honour. This is my appeal your honour and I need to represent and pursue the case in my interest. I sincerely submit your honour that delay was purely unintentional, accidental and without any malafide intention on my part and was beyond my control. In view of the above a sincere pray is made before

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

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

50\ndays in ITA No.2245/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 and 52 days in ITA\nNo.2196/KOL/2024 for A.Υ. 2018-19, in filing the appeals by the\ndepartment in support of which condonation petitions were filed. It was\nstated in the condonation petitions that the delay had occurred due to\nobtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities\nand accordingly

SHRI VANILA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 230/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri Vanila Vinimay Pvt. Limited,............Appellant C/O. S.L. Poddar & Company, E-3A, Kanti Chandra Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016 [Pan: Aaccv4577A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,................................Respondent Ward-1(3), Kolkata Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 07, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata Dated 10.01.2018 Passed For Assessment Year 2008- 09. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 1516 Days. Before Adverting To The Application For Condonation Of Delay, We Deem It Appropriate To Make Reference Of Certain Facts. 1 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri Vanila Vinimay Pvt. Limited

condonation of delay, we deem it appropriate to make reference of certain facts. 1 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri Vanila Vinimay Pvt. Limited 3. The assessee has filed its return of income electronically on 29.09.2008 showing total income of Rs.11,649/-. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income

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