BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

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

section 10(23C)(vi). According to the ld. CIT(Exemption), these applications were time-barred and, therefore, he Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Bishnupur Public Education Institute rejected all the applications. The relevant finding recorded by the ld. CIT (Exemption) reads as under:- “A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application has been submitted vide

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

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

section 10(23C)(vi). According to the ld. CIT(Exemption), these applications were time-barred and, therefore, he Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Bishnupur Public Education Institute rejected all the applications. The relevant finding recorded by the ld. CIT (Exemption) reads as under:- “A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application has been submitted vide

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

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

section 10(23C)(vi). According to the ld. CIT(Exemption), these applications were time-barred and, therefore, he Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Bishnupur Public Education Institute rejected all the applications. The relevant finding recorded by the ld. CIT (Exemption) reads as under:- “A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application has been submitted vide

GIELLE INVESTMENTS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD- 6(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

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

72 years, by religion Hindu, residing at 10, Shankar Haider Bye Lane, Hatkhola, Kolkata-700 005, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows- 1. That I am one of the directors of Gielle Investments Ltd. As such, I am competent to swear this affidavit on behalf of the said company. 2. That an appeal was filed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata M/S. Manaksia Limited 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Manaksia Limited Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, Aca Revenue By : Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, Cit, D/R

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though it is not a notice

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue for adjudication. A.Y. 2013-14 CO No. 42/KOL/2025 04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions envisaged in proviso to Section

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nCOs of the assessee are partly allowed

condone the delay and admit the\nappeals of the revenue for adjudication.\nA.Y. 2013-14\nCO No. 42/KOL/2025\n04. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue in cross objection filed,\nchallenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the conditions\nenvisaged in proviso to Section

COMMERCIAL HOUSE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

M/S. GOLDLINE DEALERS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. The assessee has taken 7 grounds of appeal. However, all the grounds are theoretical and peripheral in nature without specifically pointing out the grievance. In brief, the grievance is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,70,26,000/- added

BHARAT TIRTHA RICE MILL,BURDWAN EAST vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 10. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment order for passing a fresh assessment order. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed

WESTERN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. PCIT - 9, KOLKATA, AAYKAR BHAVAN DAKSHIN

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

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. Erroneous Assumption of Suppression of Sales - Rs 13,73,334/-: That the Ld. PCIT, while passing the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, erroneously considered the appellant's turnover

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRG IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Dcit, Circle-(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Brg Iron & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. Suit No.402,403,404, Plot No.5, Block-Dp, Salt Lake Sector-5, Godrej Waterside Building, Kol. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb2175L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “01. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 20624601/- on account of estimated net profit? 2 M/s. BRG Iron

M/S IFGL REFRACTORIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

condone the delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matter on merits and the expression “sufficient cause” as provided in Section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner so that the ends

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016