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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOUDAMINI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal ITA No

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared. 2nd Appeal was e-filed

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objections have been preferred by the assessee, both emanating from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)], dated 07.08.2023, passed

M/S. CSS PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. I..T.O., WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.20/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Css Projects Pvt. Ltd......…...................................................……Appellant Shantiniketan Building, 8, Camac Street, Room No.1011, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Aaccc6067A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14 , 2023 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 22.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred. A Perusal Of The Record Shows That The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Is Dated 22.11.2019, Whereas, The Appeal Has Been Filed In The Month Of January 2023. A Copy Of The Affidavit Of Shri Sanjay Kr. Jain, Director Of The Assessee Company Has Been Placed On File, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That None Of The Notices Of Hearing Issued By Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Now, coming to the merits of the appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities for making impugned additions of Rs.1,88,62,500/- observing that the assessee has received the share premium of the said amount, which was considered to exceed fair market value

RITUDHARA DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Ritudhara Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 5/1, Clive Row, 4 Th Floor, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcr7607A Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication, 05. The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of ₹12,93,00,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) in an ex-parte order as made by the ld. AO on account of share capital/ share premium despite the assessee filing all the relevant documents

ITO,WARD-8(2),KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUS REALTY PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 2 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Indus Realty Pvt. Limited 3. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal. The solitary grievance of the Revenue is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition

M/S. RADHIKA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,24-PARGANAS NORTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 14(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Your Honours That In The Present Case, The Appellate Order Is Dated 24.11.2023. Accordingly, The Last Date To File The Appeal Was 23.01.2024. As Such There Is A Delay Of 141 Days In Filing The Appeal. Regarding Delay In Filing Of Appeal, It Is Submitted That The Hearing Notices Dated 21.09.2023, 18.10.2023 & 06.11.2023 Were Sent At Incorrect Email Ids Ie. Aabcr2237H@Gmail.Com Sdacasit@Gmail.Com Whereas The Correct Email Id Was It.Vkma@Gmail.Com Which Was Duly Mentioned In The Returns Of Income & At

delay is hereby condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal emanates from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

ITO, WD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SAFELINE MARKETING PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

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

condone the delay of 12 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in the deleting the addition of Rs. 14,20,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital