NIRMAL SANTRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC failed to appreciate that none of the conditions precedent existed and/or have been complied with and/or fulfilled by the Ld. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TIRUPATI NIRYAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), O/O The Dcit, Central Circle 1(1) Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Vs. 110, Shantipally, Em By Pass Kolkata-700029, West Bengal Pin-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct4058P Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

delay is hereby condoned Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 03. Brief facts of the case are that assessee had filed return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring NIL income. Carried forward loss of Rs. 1,56,15,948/- was shown in the return. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The assessee Company is engaged

DEB PRASANNA CHOUDHURY,KOLKATA vs. ADIT/DCIT (IT) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeal)-22, Kolkata has erred in law and in facts in confirming the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer assessing the Total Income at Rs. 1,00,28,740/- only

AMAL MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR. , DURGAPUR.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and adjudicate the matter on merits. 4. The only issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of addition made by the Ld. AO u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act in respect of difference between the market value of the property purchased by the assessee and the value adopted for the stamp duty

MOHAMMED KHALID MASUD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammed Khalid Masud……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 70, Karaya Road, Circus Row Kolkata - 700019. [Pan:Afapm6677G] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Divakar Chakraborty, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 389 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Further Supported By An Affidavit Of The Petitioner Namely Mohammed Khalid Masud. Considering The Submissions Made In The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.17,82,513/- invoking the provisions of section 50C

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n03. The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal is against the\napplicability of the provisions of Section 56(2)(X) of the Act by the Id.\nAO which was upheld by the Id. CIT (A).\n04. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny

RINA RAY,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2),, DARJEELING

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, 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: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

section 50C of the Act. The appellant had duly disclosed the capital gain in her return filed on 30.05.2022 u/s.148 considering the full value of Rs.38,83,125/-. The appellant had considered the cost of acquisition of the sold property as on 01.04.2001 for Rs.6,00,000/- and computed her capital gain at Rs.22,51,125/- after considering the indexed

SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CPC, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the CPC while issuing the intimation order u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and to have made adjustment in respect of the long term capital gain [LTCG] from immovable

MRS. KABITA DAS (SAHA),KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOKATA - XVII, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 50C of the Act, I was advised that the assessee should have preferred an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal seeking cancellation/modification of the said order passed by the Learned C.I.T., Kolkata-XVII U/s.263 of the Act on 11.12.2008. 10. That I realized the error of judgment on my part and felt that the assessee should not suffer

PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). The assessee has been calculating the delay from the knowledge of this order whereas Registry has been calculating the delay from the date of passing of the order till the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has contended that service of I.T.A. No.: 1329/KOL/2023 Assessment

BLUPEX VINIMOY PVT. LTD.,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 14(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2274/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Blupex Vinimoy Private Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata The Terminus, Room No.415, 4Th Floor, 32 Marg, Bg-12, Aa-1B, North 24 Parganas, New Town, West Bengal-56 Pan No. :Aabcb 0157 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Deep Agarwal, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 11.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of The Act 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Appeal Is A Penalty Appeal & The Quantum Matter Is Pending Before The Ld.Cit(A). It Was Also The Submission That The Main Issue For Levy Of Penalty Was A Valuation Report Which Had Not Received By The Assessing Officer When The Assessment Order Was Passed. It Was The Submission That Even Till Date The Valuation Report Has Not Been Received Nor Has Been Provided Too The Assessee. It Was The Submission In Page 2 Of The Order The Ld. Cit(A) Has Categorically Condoned The Delay, However, In Para 5.7 Of His Order, He Has Dismissed

condoning the delay. It was the submission, at the outset, that the penalty is being levied on a possible/probable variation which is suspected by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that even till date there is no evidence of misreporting or underreporting. It was the submission that the penalty may be cancelled. 3. In reply, ld.Sr. DR submitted that

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

condoning the delay. The appellant further pray that the denial of appeal on this technical ground would cause irreparable damage and losses to the appellant. 12. That the above information and explanation are true and correct and the deponent adheres to them.” 3.1. The impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is dated 29.05.2020 which is passed during

TAPAN KAYAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-63(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the assessee on merit. 3. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is employed with Calcutta State Transport Corporation. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 01.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,68,960/-. As noticed

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

condone the delay herein of 291 days. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. This assessee is a company engaged in road infrastructure development and maintenance business. It files its original return on 29.09.12 declaring total income of Rs.85,69,37,910/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter completed the regular

CRYSTAL TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. TRO-2, , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Crystal Tradelink Pvt. Tro-2, Kolkata Ltd, 157 N.S Road, Top V/S. Floor, Kolkata-700 001. Pan: Aadcc0537G अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Assessee has raised flowing grounds of appeal:- 1. Under the facts and circumstances and in the law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in finalising the appeal expert. 2. Under the facts and in the law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal as allegedly, there was no compliance

DR. TUSHAR KANTI KARMAKAR ,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O.,WARD-38(2), MIDNAPORE

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

delay of 227 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 on 30.04.2014 declaring total income of ₹5,41,100/-. The AO completed assessment on 29.01.2016 determining the total income at ₹26,57,900/-, inter alia making additions on account of, undisclosed investment in land, bogus claim