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

SHRI VIJAY MAHIPAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 18.01.2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of one day in filing of appeal by the assessee. The reasons adduced by the assessee for the same are convincing and accordingly we hereby condone the delay

DEEPAK SWITCH GEARS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. I.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd 6. The brief facts of the case are that as noted from the order of the ld. Pr. CIT are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under

SMT. ROMI LAHIRI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee purchased a plot of land on 5.2.2004 for Rs. 3,72,140/- and sold it away on 7.12.2005 for Rs.9,93,700/-, but claimed both long term capital gains as well as benefit under section 54F

M/S. PEARL TRACOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. PCIT was wholly unjustified in setting aside the order passed by the AO u/s 263/143(3) dt. 30.12.2016 holding the said order

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

condone the delay for cause of justice. 2 Shuvro Chattaraj, AY: 2015-16 2. That the Ld. Pr. CIT passed a perverse Order in setting aside on grounds that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law in interpreting the provisions of section

FACIT SALES(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-5, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 4. The Pr. CIT-5, Kolkata invokes the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and issued following show-cause notice to the assessee which is extracted for ready reference: “Related to the. Assessment year 2010-2011, your case was completed u/s. 147/143

KARAN POLYMERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 setting aside the assessment order dated 30th November, 2018 passed

M/S ROY AND SAHANI COMPANY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 24(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of the appeal:- “1. For that the Ld PCIT erred in holding that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground of no enquiry when there was no lack of enquiry

M/S RANI SATI AGRO TECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that the Ld. Principal CIT erred in exercising the power of revision for the purpose of directing the A.O. to hold another investigation when the A.O. had complied with the directions of the predecessor

K.R.OVERSEAS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-(CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & 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. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the order made by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') is illegal, invalid

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 3. The assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on 28/06/2016, declaring total income of Rs.6,21,37,340/-. In this return of income, she declared income from rent from house property and long term capital gains from sale of tenancy rights, in addition