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]

56(2)(vii) of the Act. He subm the taxability of the compensation u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He submits that the averments of its that the averments of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views

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

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

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

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

RAJENDRA RAMPAL,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & 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. That the Appeal Order passed u/s 250 dated 05.04.2025 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, Income Tax Department, is unlawful, unwarranted and against natural justice

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

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 - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as 6 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg. Ltd.., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as 6 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg. Ltd.., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would

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

vii) CIT v Govindram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.). 4. The contention of the assessee for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal is that Scheme of the Income Tax Act contemplates that under section 144C of the income Tax Act, the ld. Assessing Officer was required to first prepare a draft assessment order and such draft

KANHA VILLA LLP,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 29(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2 Kanha Villa LLP (hereafter “the Act”) dated 13.08.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]. 2.1 In this case, the assessee

SUBODH ADHIKARY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 51(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay ad admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The first issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 1 and 2 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee in beginning is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the additions made in Ground

MOURATA DAS,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

delay is here by condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee had purchased an immovable property at Rs. 15,88,375/- during the FY 2016-17 relevant to the AY 2017-18 and it is noted from the purchase deed furnished by the assessee that property owned jointly with Shri Tapan Kumar

BISWADIP GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLIE - 1(1), I.T.,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & 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. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex parte order without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that

CHANDANA MUKHERJEE,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), BURDWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

delay is hereby condoned. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee is a salaried person, purchased a flat along with his son both having equal share. The purchase amount of the flat has been paid jointly to the seller as per sale deed but he has paid extra stamp duty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

vii) AO vide notice u/s 142(1) had enquired about details of coal\npurchased, Raw material consumed, Finished goods produced,\nElectricity consumed etc. Appellant duly provided all such details.\nOn a perusal of such details AO accepted such purchase of coal,\nproduction of finished goods and consumption of electricity which\nreflects that there is no doubt about all such data

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

vii) AO vide notice u/s 142(1) had enquired about details of coal\npurchased, Raw material consumed, Finished goods produced,\nElectricity consumed etc. Appellant duly provided all such details.\nOn a perusal of such details AO accepted such purchase of coal,\nproduction of finished goods and consumption of electricity which\nreflects that there is no doubt about all such data

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

vii) AO vide notice u/s 142(1) had enquired about details of coal\npurchased, Raw material consumed, Finished goods produced,\nElectricity consumed etc. Appellant duly provided all such details.\nOn a perusal of such details AO accepted such purchase of coal,\nproduction of finished goods and consumption of electricity which\nreflects that there is no doubt about all such data