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

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. a.) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. A.O. failed to understand the nature of transaction. While the assessee had entered into a Development Agreement with Thika Tenants/Principals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. NETAI BHADRA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

delay is condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income in Form ITR 3 on 31/03/2021 declaring total income at Rs.28,57,690/-. Subsequently, the assessee also filed a revised return of income on 18.09.2021 declaring total income at Rs.22,72,880/-. The said revised return was processed under section

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

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

DEBDAS GHOSH,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 24(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 because he failed to appreciate that in the impugned assessment order the Ld. Assessing Officer had inter alia stated that the order was being passed subject to amendment under section 155(15) as and when the valuation report is received from valuation officer. Therefore, Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) to be set aside and restored

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

ANUPAM GUHA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Anupam Guha….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 5/17 Regent Park, Kol- 700040.. [Pan: Agjpg0760G] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manoj Kumar Patil, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, 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 filed Return of Income declaring income of Rs.17,33,480/- for Assessment Year 2020-21. The case was selected for scrutiny under "CASS" by issue of notice u/s 143(2

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

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

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

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

DCIT,CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DERBY TEA & INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :1998-99

condone the delay in preferring the instant Appeal . Now let us proceed with the case on merits. First issue 5. First issue raised by Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer for Rs.35,57,392/- in case of Nagrijuli Tea Estates and Rs. 5,38,548/- in the case of Tongani

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

X of the Act. Section 92 of the Act provides that, any income from specified domestic transactions, as defined in Section 92BA of the Act, have to be computed at arm’s length price. Further, Section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Rules sets out the specified methods in terms of which such arm’s length

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

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

56,77,000/-\nby applying average rate of Rs.4000/- per MT to the quantity delivered to\nthe assessee of 13919.25, which is again based on presumption and\nsurmises whereas the actual purchase cost of coal varies from\nRs.2,500/MT to Rs.17,000/MT depending upon the Carbon Content, Ash\ncontent and various other factors. Therefore, the very basis of the\nAssessing