D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

delay of two days in filing of this appeal by the Revenue. The same is hereby condoned. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee challenged the maintainability of the Departmental appeal. The assessee filed detailed written submissions dated 09/04/2021 in this regard. In response, the Revenue also filed detailed note on the issue

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

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUPITER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was established on 08.09.1978 and is engaged in the trading of computer peripherals and parts and manufacturing of CDR and DVDR. The Jupiter International Limited assessee company filed its original return

B.R. CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

B. R. Construction, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and declare as follows: 1. That I was assessed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. That I had filed an Appeal in Form 35 against the Assessment Order for A.Y. 2020-21. 3. That the CIT(A) heard the Appeal and passed

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

56(2)(vii) sub clause (b) r.w.s 50(c) sub section 2, in the circumstances, the assessee had question the view taken by Assessing Authority. 4. Alternatively, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC ought to consider that the difference in Stamp duty value taken at Rs. 70,85,000/- is only 10.70% higher than actual consideration

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.)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. ITA No. 937/K/18 ITA No. 938/K/18 ITA No. 1439/K/18 A.Y 2010­11 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd 3 6. We shall take summarized and concise ground No.1, which reads as follows: (1). Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 937/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11 and Ground

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.)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. ITA No. 937/K/18 ITA No. 938/K/18 ITA No. 1439/K/18 A.Y 2010­11 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd 3 6. We shall take summarized and concise ground No.1, which reads as follows: (1). Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 937/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11 and Ground

BHIRINGHEE MINING & MINERALS PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. PCIT - BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and thereby setting aside the assessment order dated 29.11.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

G.S. PROCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

delay of 345 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in the business of civil contractor. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b

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

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)

section 56(2)(b)(ii). 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 319 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation

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

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

section 56(2)(x)(b) and added to the income of AY 2020-21. Since no reply was filed, therefore, a sum of Rs. 49,00,000/- was added on account of capital gains. As regards income from other sources, a sum of Rs.1,46,23,369/- was also added u/s. 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Before

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

B’ BENCH, KOLKATA VIRTUAL COURT HEARING (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Hon’ble Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Kolkata................……………….….........Appellant Vs. Smt. Shikha Roy........................................................................…..…………..................……………..Respondent 91/1, Southern Avenue Ballygunge Kolkata – 700 029 [PAN : ACZPR 9690 L] Appearances by: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, appeared

ARGHANIL MUKHOPADHYAY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(2), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

condone the delay and we do so. Thus, we note that in the aforesaid circumstances the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee and since assessee’s mother was out of India, notice of hearing could not be meaning fully served upon them and no effective hearing could have taken

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 1.3 Since the issues are common, all the eight appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 466/KOL/2018: “1) That on the facts and circumstances

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GANESH REALTY & MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.581/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. M/s. Ganesh Realty & Mall Development Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2012-13 3. The grievances raised by the Revenueare as follows: “1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the complete assessment passed by the Addl

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial