M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

2 is that the depreciation, upon change of method, can be claimed prospectively only from the date the change has been effected. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is disposed of with no orders as to costs. ii) Srinivas Synthetics Packers (P) Ltd. (2009) 122 TTJ 832 ( ITAT Agra Bench) As distinct from a reserve, which represents

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Depreciated Replacement Cost Method, the copies thereof were placed at pages no. 132 to 178 of the paper book. The ld. A.R. stated that during F.Y. 2017-18, the assessee had executed the final deed of conveyance , which was registered with the stamp valuation authority, who valued the leasehold land and building at Rs.211,63,11,850/- (for leasehold land

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

2) or sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) of section 74, or sub-section (3) of section 74A, being the sections mentioned in section 139(3) of the Act. Section 72A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, in the case of a demerger, the accumulated

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

SRIMANTA KUMAR SHIT,PURBA MEDINAPORE vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 27(2), HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1911/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Srimanta Kumar Shit,………………...…………Appellant Rangamalaput, Junput-Contai, Purba Medinapore-721450, West Bengal [Pan:Bffps3635Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax..…Respondent Circle-27(2), Haldia, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Midnapore-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2024 O R D E R

2) of the Act was issued on 24.09.2018. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06.09.2019 followed by reminder letter dated 08.11.2019. Thereafter SCN was issued on 20.12.2019 proposing various additions made in in the Return of Income. The assessee did not reply to the same. 4. A notice u/s 133(6) was issued to banks

ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

142 / 13 /2014-TPL which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience (Page 38) :- “Para 8 – Applicability of the registration granted to a trust or institution to earlier years Para 8.2 Non-application of registration for the period prior to the year of registration caused genuine hardship to charitable organizations. Due to absence of registration, tax liability is fastened even

DCIT(E),CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORG., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

142 / 13 /2014-TPL which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience (Page 38) :- “Para 8 – Applicability of the registration granted to a trust or institution to earlier years Para 8.2 Non-application of registration for the period prior to the year of registration caused genuine hardship to charitable organizations. Due to absence of registration, tax liability is fastened even

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limita- tion of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has ex- pired, or 11 Suresh Kumar Poddar (c) assessment or reassessment

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUPITER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

142(1) of the Act were issued and the assessee duly complied with and assessment order under section 153A w.r.to 143(3) of the Act was passed on 31.12.2016, determining total income of Rs.3,13,90,140/-. after inter-alia making following disallowances or additions:- 1. Additions under section 14A of the Act amounting

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

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

142(1) notice stood issued on 07.05.2014 calling for relevant details followed by various hearings as well as the fact that the reopening reasons sufficiently quoted the corresponding proceedings in assessment year 2010-11 including the legal issue of section 80IC deduction alongwith ITA No. 1962-1966/Kol/2016 AYs 07-08 to 09-10, 11-12 to 12-13 DCIT/ACITX

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

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

142(1) notice stood issued on 07.05.2014 calling for relevant details followed by various hearings as well as the fact that the reopening reasons sufficiently quoted the corresponding proceedings in assessment year 2010-11 including the legal issue of section 80IC deduction alongwith ITA No. 1962-1966/Kol/2016 AYs 07-08 to 09-10, 11-12 to 12-13 DCIT/ACITX

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

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

142(1) notice stood issued on 07.05.2014 calling for relevant details followed by various hearings as well as the fact that the reopening reasons sufficiently quoted the corresponding proceedings in assessment year 2010-11 including the legal issue of section 80IC deduction alongwith ITA No. 1962-1966/Kol/2016 AYs 07-08 to 09-10, 11-12 to 12-13 DCIT/ACITX

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

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

142(1) notice stood issued on 07.05.2014 calling for relevant details followed by various hearings as well as the fact that the reopening reasons sufficiently quoted the corresponding proceedings in assessment year 2010-11 including the legal issue of section 80IC deduction alongwith ITA No. 1962-1966/Kol/2016 AYs 07-08 to 09-10, 11-12 to 12-13 DCIT/ACITX

ACIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, SIKKIM vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES,, SIKKIM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

142(1) notice stood issued on 07.05.2014 calling for relevant details followed by various hearings as well as the fact that the reopening reasons sufficiently quoted the corresponding proceedings in assessment year 2010-11 including the legal issue of section 80IC deduction alongwith details of plant and machinery installed, labour employed, inconsistencies in consumption of raw material followed by analysis

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation claimed 7. Large value sale of consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property reported in TDS return under section 194IA 8. Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR 9. Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR 4. After conducting enquiries with

H,L.G.MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,ASANSOL vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2007-08 Hlg Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant Sen Railegh Road Asansol – 713 305 West Bengal [Pan : Aabch 3927 P] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Asansol……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th , 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

2 Assessment Years: 2007-08 HLG Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd HLG Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd. In the light of the above facts, it is apparent that the assessee has claimed ht of the above facts, it is apparent that the assessee has claimed ht of the above facts, it is apparent that the assessee has claimed excess depreciation

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

depreciation, repairs & maintenance and computed the income from house property as per the provision of the Act and assessed the total income at ₹6,43,000/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “The main

BRAJBHUMI NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the\nAct) along with questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the\nassessee. The Id. AO noted from the balance sheet that, the assessee\nhad issued 10,00,000 shares having face value of Rs. 10/- each at a\npremium of Rs. 179.40/per share, thereby raising share capital of\nRs.18