ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORTUNE INTERFINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 73 and holding that loss of Rs.3.97 Lacs was deemed to be speculation loss.” 5.2 We also find that the decision of Kolkata Tribunal has been approved by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Sand Dune Trade Pvt Ltd in ITAT NO. 146 of 2010 G.A.No.1982 of 2010 and G.A.No

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAIMA EQUITIES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in treating the share trading loss of Rs. 2,07,38,602/- as normal business loss instead of speculation loss in the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ATN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 3. The first issue to be decided in the appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in treating the loss of Rs. 85,84,968/- as business loss as against the speculation loss treated by the ld AO in the facts

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GUINESS SECURITES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1712/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal of the revenue reads as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A ) erred in law in allowing the loss of Rs 34,61,912/- on speculative transactions to be adjusted with profit from non speculative business. 2. Whether on the facts

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 427/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6(2), Kolkata Vs 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber Vs Tax, Circle-6(2), Kolkata 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/06/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross-Objection Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 965 Days In Filing The Cross-Objection By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A 2

condone the delay and proceed to admit the same for hearing. 3. First, we will take up the revenue’s appeal. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading, manufacturing and investment. Loss of Rs.39,45,49,119/- declared in the e-return for Assessment Year 2009-10 furnished

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The revised ground of appeal raised by the revenue is as under: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the loss in purchase and sale of shares of other companies including trading

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

ISDEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MILKHIRAM MARKET, SAKCHI, JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay along with supporting documents 6. Ground 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the mere technical ground of delay in filing, without appreciating the well-settled principle that no lax can be collected without the authority of law The rejection

SHREE MATHUR VAISHYA JAN HIT PARISHAD,KOLKATA vs. WARD 1(3),EXEMPT,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

73 days in submitting the appeal. On going through the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. JCIT(A) erred

SUJOY KRISHNA JANA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 27(1),, HALDIA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal without appreciating that the Appellant had "sufficient cause" for such delay and also not deciding the Appeal on merits. 3. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the ADDL/JCIT(A)- 4, Mumbai. had failed to appreciate/understand that the amendment to sub clause (iv) of clause (a) to section

SUJOY KRISHNA JANA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 27(1),, HALDIA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal without appreciating that the Appellant had "sufficient cause" for such delay and also not deciding the Appeal on merits. 3. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the ADDL/JCIT(A)- 4, Mumbai. had failed to appreciate/understand that the amendment to sub clause (iv) of clause (a) to section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S PAWAN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

Section 73. 2} The Ld C.I.T {Appeals} is not justified in treating share trading loss not as deemed speculation u/s73 and has allowed this amount to be set off against income from other sources. 3} The Ld C.I.T {Appeals} is not justified in allowing proportionate expenses of Rs 1,34,514/- relating to speculation expenses.” 3. There is a delay

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NARIMAN FINVEST (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and that of assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. First we take up Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1614/Kol/11 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer for ₹33,60,261/- as speculation loss. 4. Brief facts are that assessee is a Private Limited Company

CFL CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee is a Non-banking Finance Company engaged in the business of leasing. It filed its return of income on 01.11.2004 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,28,99,760/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 22.12.2006 determining the total income at Rs. 4,35,48,572/-, inter alia, making

ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CFL CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

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

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee is a Non-banking Finance Company engaged in the business of leasing. It filed its return of income on 01.11.2004 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,28,99,760/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 22.12.2006 determining the total income at Rs. 4,35,48,572/-, inter alia, making

VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble, Kz & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2012-13 Vasupujya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd……...…...........................................................……………….…......Appellant 35, C.R. Avenue Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Aaacv 8958 M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2) Kolkata……….....................……........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, F.C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Imokaba Jamir, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 10Th, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp, Kz:-

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessing Officer, therefore, invoked Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’) and worked out the expenses incurred in relation to the earning of exempt income at Rs.1,41,36,211/-. He, however, restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of business expenses/loss claimed

DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

73[section section (1) 271, section 271AA,] section 271B73[, section 271BA], 74[section 271C, 75[section 271BB,] section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, 76[section 271F, 77[section 271FA,] 78[section 271FAB,]79[section 271FB,] 80[section 271G,]] 81[section 271GA,] 81a[section 271GB,] 82[section 271H,] 83[section 271-I,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section

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

73 days which was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and the delay was duly explained. Therefore, Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) to be set aside and restored back for deciding on merit. 2. For that, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay because