ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases are assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. It transpires at the outset that one of the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.2293/Kol/2017 suffers 130 days’ delay in filing. It has placed on record its condonation petition stating reasons thereof to various procedural formalities and compilation

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases are assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. It transpires at the outset that one of the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.2293/Kol/2017 suffers 130 days’ delay in filing. It has placed on record its condonation petition stating reasons thereof to various procedural formalities and compilation

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases are assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. It transpires at the outset that one of the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.2293/Kol/2017 suffers 130 days’ delay in filing. It has placed on record its condonation petition stating reasons thereof to various procedural formalities and compilation

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases are assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. It transpires at the outset that one of the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.2293/Kol/2017 suffers 130 days’ delay in filing. It has placed on record its condonation petition stating reasons thereof to various procedural formalities and compilation

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases are assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. It transpires at the outset that one of the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.2293/Kol/2017 suffers 130 days’ delay in filing. It has placed on record its condonation petition stating reasons thereof to various procedural formalities and compilation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBEY MINING PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AKA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

M/S V.A.R.ALLOY & STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases is assessment year 2013-14. 2. It transpires at the outset that some of the cross objections that CO Nos.104- 106/Kol/2018 suffer from identical delay of 548 days’ in filing. These assessees have placed on record their respective condonation petition(s) / affidavit(s) stating reasons

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAND TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases is assessment year 2013-14. 2. It transpires at the outset that some of the cross objections that CO Nos.104- 106/Kol/2018 suffer from identical delay of 548 days’ in filing. These assessees have placed on record their respective condonation petition(s) / affidavit(s) stating reasons

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMAUTAR GROURISARIA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases is assessment year 2013-14. 2. It transpires at the outset that some of the cross objections that CO Nos.104- 106/Kol/2018 suffer from identical delay of 548 days’ in filing. These assessees have placed on record their respective condonation petition(s) / affidavit(s) stating reasons

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALISSA NIRMANS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases is assessment year 2013-14. 2. It transpires at the outset that some of the cross objections that CO Nos.104- 106/Kol/2018 suffer from identical delay of 548 days’ in filing. These assessees have placed on record their respective condonation petition(s) / affidavit(s) stating reasons

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDRADEV VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases is assessment year 2013-14. 2. It transpires at the outset that some of the cross objections that CO Nos.104- 106/Kol/2018 suffer from identical delay of 548 days’ in filing. These assessees have placed on record their respective condonation petition(s) / affidavit(s) stating reasons

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHARA VINIMAY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases is assessment year 2013-14. 2. It transpires at the outset that some of the cross objections that CO Nos.104- 106/Kol/2018 suffer from identical delay of 548 days’ in filing. These assessees have placed on record their respective condonation petition(s) / affidavit(s) stating reasons

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PASUPATI COMMERCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Relevant assessment year in all these cases is assessment year 2013-14. 2. It transpires at the outset that some of the cross objections that CO Nos.104- 106/Kol/2018 suffer from identical delay of 548 days’ in filing. These assessees have placed on record their respective condonation petition(s) / affidavit(s) stating reasons

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI LIADHAR AGARWALA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

condone the impugned delay of 25 days in filing. This main appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue’s / appellant’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal pleads that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action imposing sec. 271AAB penalty of ₹26 lac. imposed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOBHA CHAND BHANSALI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2011-12 IT(SS)A No. 55/KOL/2025 3. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) restricting the addition to ₹15,42,994/-, being brokerage earned as against the addition of ₹1.00 crore made by the ld. AO, based on the seized documents

ACIT, CIR.-4(3), KOLKATA vs. SRI JIVENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, KOLLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

condone the delay of three days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s. 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 18.02.2013 (AY 2013-14) which is the relevant year under consideration for this penalty appeal which was conducted on M/s. Rashmi Group and its associates. Shri

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Honble High Court as well as before the Honble Supreme Court, then, Honble Court