SANKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

96 days which I pray your goodself to kindly condone. 6) Kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and oblige.” In a 144/147 appeal “ Respected Sir, Kindly refer to the appeal hereby filed. I submit as under: 1) In this case assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 on 28.03.2022. 2) The due date to file the appeal against

SANKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

96 days which I pray your goodself to kindly condone. 6) Kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and oblige.” In a 144/147 appeal “ Respected Sir, Kindly refer to the appeal hereby filed. I submit as under: 1) In this case assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 on 28.03.2022. 2) The due date to file the appeal against

NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

section 263 order of the ld CIT before the tribunal together with a delay condonation petition as the assessee has got a good case and fair chance of succeeding in appeal. In support of this, the ld AR relied on the following decisions for condonation of delay :- (a) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case

MUKUND RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

section 263 order of the ld CIT before the tribunal together with a delay condonation petition as the assessee has got a good case and fair chance of succeeding in appeal. In support of this, the ld AR relied on the following decisions for condonation of delay :- (a) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

96,65,75,000/- by way of an ex-parte order. I.T.A. No.: 925/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Baba Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 27.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 22,345/-. An assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

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

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. 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

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

SRIYANS ENTERPRISES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1298/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 22, Brb Basu Road, 1St Floor, Room No.14, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaics 4667 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 13.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belated By 136 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay. The Contents Of The Application Are As Under :- Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench Ref: Appeal Petition Filed On: In The Matter Of : - An Application For Condonation Of The Delay In Filing The Memorandum Of Appeal Against The Appellate Order Dated 13-11- 2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-2017; & In The Matter Of The :- A Memorandum Of Appeal Filed Under The Income Tax Act, 1961; & In The Matter Of: -

condone the delay of 136 days in filing of the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income as per provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for AY 2016-17 on 19.10.2016 declaring total income

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 13. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of that Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding. 14. The rest of the two grounds read as under:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 13. The Revenue has taken three grounds of appeal, out of that Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding. 14. The rest of the two grounds read as under:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

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

condone the delay and admit these cross objections filed by assessee. 33. Ground No. 1 raised in this Cross Objection is as follows: “(1) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Education Cess and the Secondary and Higher Education Cess incurred by the assessee is deductible while computing profits from business

PEARL PARK BEACH RESORTS,PORT BLAIR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(4),, PORT BLAIR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In this connection, it is submitted that one of the partners of the appellant firm, Ms. C. Seetha, was hospitalized in Apollo Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, for the treatment of Parotid Abscesses. The doctors advised complete bed rest, and as a result