TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

disallowance of expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden thereon causes undue hardship to the Assessee and penalising multiple times under different laws for the same offence. 7. The Assessee was suffering from huge cash crunch during the relevant period and hence defaulted in depositing the statutory contributions within due dates but paid

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

disallowance of expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden thereon causes undue hardship to the Assessee and penalising multiple times under different laws for the same offence. 7. The Assessee was suffering from huge cash crunch during the relevant period and hence defaulted in depositing the statutory contributions within due dates but paid

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

disallowance of expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden thereon causes undue hardship to the Assessee and penalising multiple times under different laws for the same offence. 7. The Assessee was suffering from huge cash crunch during the relevant period and hence defaulted in depositing the statutory contributions within due dates but paid

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowed under normal provisions of section 37 of the Act. We note that fuel and fixed cost adjustments are unbilled revenue as firmly set out by WBERC. We have perused the audited financial statements and are of the view that the assessee has unbilled income because of fuel cost adjustment and fixed cost adjustment as set out by WBERC. Therefore

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowed under normal provisions of section 37 of the Act. We note that fuel and fixed cost adjustments are unbilled revenue as firmly set out by WBERC. We have perused the audited financial statements and are of the view that the assessee has unbilled income because of fuel cost adjustment and fixed cost adjustment as set out by WBERC. Therefore

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowed under normal provisions of section 37 of the Act. We note that fuel and fixed cost adjustments are unbilled revenue as firmly set out by WBERC. We have perused the audited financial statements and are of the view that the assessee has unbilled income because of fuel cost adjustment and fixed cost adjustment as set out by WBERC. Therefore

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowed under normal provisions of section 37 of the Act. We note that fuel and fixed cost adjustments are unbilled revenue as firmly set out by WBERC. We have perused the audited financial statements and are of the view that the assessee has unbilled income because of fuel cost adjustment and fixed cost adjustment as set out by WBERC. Therefore

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

246 of\nthe Act as per the e-Appeals Scheme, 2023, notified by the Central Board\nof Direct taxes. After considering the submissions made by the assessee,\nthe ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in the following manner:\nI.T.A. No.2277/Kol/2024\n Assessment Year: 2022-23\nM/s Elcon Estate Pvt. Ltd\n\"6. Decision:\n7.1 The statement of facts, grounds

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

246 ITR 173 the Division Bench of this Court opined that an intimation under section 143(1) (a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment. Therefore, although the assessment had been completed under section 143(1) (a), recourse could be taken to section 147. In that case while finalising assessment for the assessment year 1996-97 under section

APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance to be made under section 14A of the Act and deduction claimed under section 80GGB and 80G of the Act. It is also manifest that ld. CIT(A) had raised the three above noted issues from the point of view of their taxability. Since ld. AO had not applied his mind to the question of taxability or non-taxability

DCIT, CENTRAL -4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH AUTO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

246/- as made by the Id. AO u/s 36(1)(ii) of the Act in respect\nof interest on the above loans which is consequential to ground no.1\nand hence, deleted. The ground no. 3 is accordingly allowed.\n6.\nThe issue raised in ground no.4 is against the deletion of addition

M/S B.N. DUTTA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

disallowed correctly has not been fully adjudicated on merits rather than solely dismissed the appeal on technical issue of delay. On similar circumstances, the Coordinate Ranchi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Kr. Choudhury vs. DCIT in IT(SS) Nos.3 to 8/Ran/2020 allowed a delay of 1130 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.55,256 u/s 40(a)(ia), there appeared a total income of Rs.6,21,42,197 while as per the Return the Total Income had been Nil. The Assessing Officer computed the tax/interest payable by the appellant at Rs 31,36,906 which was inclusive

A T AND S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NANJANGUD,MYSORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

disallowed by the Revenue. The ld. AR also referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 180 Taxman 422 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that warranty provisions are allowed where the same were based upon technical evaluation. The ld. AR submitted in present

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIR.-1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. MAHABIR PRASAD GUPTA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

disallowance observing that it has also been incurred in the course of business and the same is eligible for set off against the interest on fixed deposit treating the same as business receipt. Thus, appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds and on the other hand

ANJANI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) KOLKATA - 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Pcit (Central) Kolkata-2, Anjani Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), 1D, Ashoka, 14, Ashoka Road, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Alipore H.O. Vs. 110, Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700027, West Bengal 700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aehpa0038H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

246 (Calcutta)[25-08-2022], Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), PCIT Vs V. Con Integrated Solutions (P) Ltd (2025) 173 taxmann.com 773(P&H) which has been affirmed by the Hon,ble Apex Court in PCIT Vs V. Con Integrated Solutions (P) Ltd (2025) 173 taxmann.com 774(SC) by dismissing

RAIGARH JUTE & TEXTILE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcr2034B] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)- 15 Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing & Adding Back The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction Of Loss Suffered Of Rs.4,02,00,360/- Suffered By The Appellant In Its Share Trading Business. 2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-15 Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Invoking The

Section 14A of the Act and in confirming the addition of Rs.87,194/- made by the Assessing Officer thereunder. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case, the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, is bad in law. 4 That the Appellant craves leave to submit further grounds and to amend, alter or otherwise

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

1) of the Act. The reason for selecting the case for scrutiny was for verifying suspicious transaction relating to long term capital gain on share, low net profit from share broking business, Large value sale of option in securities (derivatives) in a recognised stock exchange, Large value sale of futures (derivatives) in a recognized stock exchange and Suspicious transactions relating