D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMRI HOSPITAL LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of assessee’s CO is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. The inter-connected issue raised by assessee in its CO is whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in applying the provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act though the assessee has declared loss in its income return under the normal provision of the Act. 6. At the outset

RAMAKRISHNA RAO,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

condonation of delay, it is mentioned in column 15 that “since I had the first available remedy to make a Rectification application u/s. 154 against the order u/s. 143(1) and thereon the rectification order has been received on 23.02.2023.” since the assessee had filed the rectification application which was disallowed it had the option to file an appeal

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

condoned, without providing any reasons. 4. Concluding that there is no "sufficient cause” for delay, without appreciating the facts and circumstances. 5. Not appreciating that the delay in filing of appeal was not deliberate, malafide or intentional, but due to a bonafide belief and reasonable cause. 6. Not appreciating that the Appellant would be put to undue injustice

UNICORN DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE (CPC), , BENGALURU

Appeal are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condonation of delay, the\nmerits were not evaluated.\n3. For the facts and in the circumstances, the CPC erred in making an\naddition of *23,20,740/- under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\nwithout providing any valid basis or justification. The disallowance of loss\namounting to ₹23,20,740/- is grossly unjustified and arbitrary. The\nappellant

SATREENA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 90 was denied on the ground of alleged delay in filing Form No. 67. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and reiterated the submissions made before the ld. Assessing Officer but the delay in submission of Form No. 67 was not condoned

SHYAM GREENFIELD DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “This is with reference to the appellate order bearing date 19.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Act for the captioned Assessment Year. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. CIT- 14, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

90 days has been granted for providing 2 Deepak Bajaj, AY 2010-11 the limitation from 01.03.2022. In the present case, registry has noted a delay of 1914 days. After considering the period relating to Covid-19 Pandemic comprising of 142 days, it leads to a delay of 1772 days. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted before the Bench that

BABA IRON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

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

MONITOR VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Monitor Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-4(2), Kolkata P-41, Princep Street, 6Th Floor, Vs. Kolkata-700072. Pan: Aafcm 1761 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar & Shri Rajiv Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.03.2017 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

90 days from 01.03.2022. The ld. AR submitted the delay in filing the appeal is not attributable to the assessee nor assesse is benefitted in any manner from late filing of appeal and therefore, prayed that delay in filing deserved to be condoned by admitting the appeal for adjudication. 3. The ld. DR strongly opposed by submitting that even

M/S. ELCON ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(1), KOLKATA

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

condoned the delay in filing Form 10-IC.\nConsequently, this ground of appeal is dismissed.\n7.2 It is essential to note that the appellant was not permitted to benefit\nfrom the new tax regime in the assessment year 2021-22. Consequently,\nthe appellant's claim of having opted for and being eligible for the new\nregime

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The 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 The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-12-2017 making additions of Rs.3,55,92,450/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect

SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaning- ful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being

NIPUN AGENCY PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 (3), KOLKATA , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income at Rs. 1,64,380/-. The case of the assessee has 3 I.T.A. No. 1147/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nipun Agency Pvt. Ltd. been selected for scrutiny, subsequently on the basis

ACIT, CIRCLE - 50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RANJIT KUMAR SAHA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the Assesse, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Ravi, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

condone the delay. 3. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee informed the Bench that the assessee does not want to press the cross objection, (CO. No. 40/Kol/2018 arising out of ITA No. 2192/Kol/2017 for the A.Y 2013-14). The ld. DR for the Revenue does not raise any objection. Therefore, we dismiss the Cross Objection filed

VAIBHAV DAS MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 90 of Income Tax Act 1961 for avoidance of double taxation and granting of credit of taxes paid outside India on income which is taxed outside India even after claiming the details of foreign tax credit in Income Tax Return filed before the Income Tax Authority. 7. For that AO and CIT (A) erred in not following the spirit

SAMPAT MAL PARAKH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would\nbe required to explain why the appeal and/or application could\nnot be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and\nexplain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking up\nthe circumstances which had caused the delay during the\nperiod of limitation and thereafter.\"\n5.2 Further

KRISHNA WEB TECH (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD -7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 334/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Krishna Web Tech (P) Limited,..................Appellant 90, Burtolla Street, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700007 [Pan: Aadck7958H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-7(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhrajyoyi Bhattacharjee, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PKC COMMODITIES (P) LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2632/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष"S / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cc-3(4), Kolkata Vs. M/S Pkc Commodities (P) Ltd. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Rd, Martin Burn House, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata- 700001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcr 5112 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: 1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ignored the facts that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to prove that entity of M/s. JKT Trading