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

disallowance of reimbursement of ESOP. 4. In the present appeal, we are not taking up the facts in detail because we are not dealing these issues on merits. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). It has filed a manual appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Besides, we have noted that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income as the sales were fully disclosed in the audited books of account, which was not in dispute and therefore in such scenario no penalty is leviable as has been levied by the Hon'ble Apex Court

THE ADVERTISING CORPORATION OF INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: The Itat Through The Following Grounds:

4,46,000/- disregarding the plea taken by the appellant and citations thereof is out of biasness, baseless, whimsical, arbitrary, and on bad faith and motive hence the act of such disallowance is liable to be quashed for the sake of justice: 6. For that and under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the authority below

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’).

4) was pending. In this case, the return was filed and the same is pending, which means that the proceeding is still pending. In such a situation, the Revenue could not have issued notice for the purpose of reopening under section 147 of the Act. In the case of Trustees of H. E. H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

4 to Section 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act. Besides, we have noted that the assessee has not furnished\ninaccurate particulars of income as the sales were fully disclosed in the\naudited books of account, which was not in dispute and therefore in\nsuch scenario no penalty is leviable as has been levied by the Hon'ble\nApex Court

LOYOLA HIGH SCHOOL,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal 2 Loyola High School 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

BIJENDER SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

249(2) of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No. 445 to 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Form 67 for all the three impugned Assessment Years have been furnished on the e-portal. Delay in filing

BIJENDER SINGH,ALIPURDUAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

249(2) of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No. 445 to 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Form 67 for all the three impugned Assessment Years have been furnished on the e-portal. Delay in filing

BIJENDER SINGH,ALIPURDUAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

249(2) of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No. 445 to 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Form 67 for all the three impugned Assessment Years have been furnished on the e-portal. Delay in filing

SHIVANANDA PATI,JALPAIGURI vs. ADIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

249(2) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Form 67 for all the three impugned Assessment Years have been furnished on the e-portal. Delay in filing the appeal for few days was not intentional as the assessee was trying to avail

SHIVANANDA PATIL,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURU

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

249(2) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Form 67 for all the three impugned Assessment Years have been furnished on the e-portal. Delay in filing the appeal for few days was not intentional as the assessee was trying to avail

SHIVANANDA PATIL,JALPAIGURI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

249(2) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Form 67 for all the three impugned Assessment Years have been furnished on the e-portal. Delay in filing the appeal for few days was not intentional as the assessee was trying to avail

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Besides, we have noted that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income as the sales were fully disclosed in the audited books of account, which was not in dispute and therefore in such scenario no penalty is leviable as has been levied by the Hon'ble Apex Court

COMMERCIAL HOUSE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

249 of 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 Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

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

disallowed the expenditure relatable to earning of alleged tax-free income. 4. Against this assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the appeal was also decided ex- 2 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Krishna Web Tech (P) Limited parte. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has made discussion about each share applicant and thereafter concurred with

SUNAG ENGINEERING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.12(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowance Rs.6,06,650/- by holding it as bogus claim of expenditure. 3. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 298 days in filing the present appeal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. The impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is dated 2 Sunag Engineering

JAI MATADI ENTERPRISE,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 42(1),, MURSHIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

249,86,106/-, being I.T.A. No.: 1356/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Jai Matadi Enterprise. 5% of total expenses of ₹9,97,22,125/- under various heads (Driver & Helper Salary, Lorry Running Expenses, and Spare Parts & Repair Expenses). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose

SHRI VANILA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 230/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri Vanila Vinimay Pvt. Limited,............Appellant C/O. S.L. Poddar & Company, E-3A, Kanti Chandra Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016 [Pan: Aaccv4577A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,................................Respondent Ward-1(3), Kolkata Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 07, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata Dated 10.01.2018 Passed For Assessment Year 2008- 09. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 1516 Days. Before Adverting To The Application For Condonation Of Delay, We Deem It Appropriate To Make Reference Of Certain Facts. 1 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri Vanila Vinimay Pvt. Limited

disallowed certain miscellaneous expenditure and determined the taxable income of the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has recorded that notices were issued to the assessee through Registered Post on a number of occasions but no one come present. Hence he dismissed the appeal after reproducing