RATULIA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITI LTD.,EAST MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(3), HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A(5) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1-4-2018, it was noted that statutory scheme under Act was to admit only such claims for deduction under section

DURGAMONDAP SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYN SAMATI LTD. ,ITO, WARD NO-49(1), KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD NO- 49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A(5) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1-4-2018, it was noted that statutory scheme under Act was to admit only such claims for deduction under section

KHANDRA COLLIERY EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,BARDHAMAN vs. THE AO, CPC BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where Also He Could Not Succeed.

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A(5) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1-4-2018, it was noted that statutory scheme under Act was to admit only such claims for deduction under section

SMT. SANGITA JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-29(4), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2013-14

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80C & 80D of the Income Tax Act, 1963 ( in short, the ‘ Act’ ). 3. As far as the first

BISHISTA BAGCHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.540/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bishista Bagchi..........................………………............................…….…………….....Appellant 3C, Santosh Garden, 8, Ekdalia Road, Ballygunj, Kolkata. [Pan:Ayapb6940J] Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru………….…..…...............……........……...…..……………Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar,Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Gautam Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :January 31, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.10.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance of loss made by the AO. Accordingly, Ground nos. 1 to 4 are 'Partly Allowed' in above terms.” Being aggrieved by the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and also gone through the records. The assessee purchased

M/S ART-E-MIDE CONSTRACTION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLA-10(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 194C is not attracted and that salary has not crossed the taxable limit after allowing deduction u/s 80C of the Act. Therefore, according to assessee there was no question of deduction of tax at source did not arise. The reply of the assessee could not convince the AO because the assessee has separately claimed salary and bonus expenses

TRIVENI DEVI BHUTRA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 61(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

80C of the Act and added the same to the returned income of the assessee and assessed the total income at ₹6,05,460/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee as per his findings as under: “4.1 Ground of Appeal

SANJIT KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.416&417/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sanjit Kumar Ghosh…...……….....................................……………....Appellant C/O Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Adhpg7981J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Durgapur.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Jain, Ar, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & None Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjiv Kumar Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15, 2023 & November 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.11.2021 & 28.04.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively.

80C of the Act. In view of our observation made above while deciding the identical ground in assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in ITA No.416/Kol/2023, this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination of the factual details/evidences furnished by the assessee and accordingly to decide the issue as per our directions given

SANJIT KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.416&417/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sanjit Kumar Ghosh…...……….....................................……………....Appellant C/O Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Adhpg7981J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Durgapur.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Jain, Ar, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & None Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjiv Kumar Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15, 2023 & November 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.11.2021 & 28.04.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively.

80C of the Act. In view of our observation made above while deciding the identical ground in assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in ITA No.416/Kol/2023, this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination of the factual details/evidences furnished by the assessee and accordingly to decide the issue as per our directions given

I.T.O WD - 3(3),PURULIA, PURULIA vs. JAMNA DAS KHOTHARI(HUF), PURULIA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly and that of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), I direct the Assessing Officer to make further addition only in respect of those persons to whom interest is credited and from whom appellant has not obtained Form 15G. the forwarding of such Form 15G to CIT is not material to the decision taking cue from the decision in ITO, Ward-2(3), Kolkata

JAMNA DAS KOTHARI (HUF),PURULIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3),PURULIA, PURULIA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly and that of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), I direct the Assessing Officer to make further addition only in respect of those persons to whom interest is credited and from whom appellant has not obtained Form 15G. the forwarding of such Form 15G to CIT is not material to the decision taking cue from the decision in ITO, Ward-2(3), Kolkata

PARVESH SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1388/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Parvesh Sharma,……………………………...……Appellant 106, B.T. Road, Rajbari, Bonhooghly, Kolkata-700108, West Bengal [Pan:Bmpps3173Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, W.B.

sections 24(b) and 80C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the two properties are in the names of Parvesh Sharma and Rohini Sharma. Therefore, the appellant’s assertion that there is no co-owner of the properties is factually incorrect. Furthermore, the appellant claims to have enclosed the purchase deeds for both properties, however, the documents submitted

ITO, WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. SHRI ARUNASIA SARKAR, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the cross appeals as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. I.T.A. No. 176/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer..………………………………………………………….............................Appellant Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………...........................Respondent 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 176/Kol/2015) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 14, 2018

80C 1,00,000 1,00,000 u/s 80G 12,000 0 u/s 80GG 24,000 24,000 u/s 80JJA 0 3,00,000 u/s 80QQB 0 2,00,000 u/s 80RRB 0 1,33,000 u/s 80U 75,000 0 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the books of accounts so as to enable

ARUNASHIS SARKAR,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-1(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the cross appeals as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. I.T.A. No. 176/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer..………………………………………………………….............................Appellant Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………...........................Respondent 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 176/Kol/2015) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 14, 2018

80C 1,00,000 1,00,000 u/s 80G 12,000 0 u/s 80GG 24,000 24,000 u/s 80JJA 0 3,00,000 u/s 80QQB 0 2,00,000 u/s 80RRB 0 1,33,000 u/s 80U 75,000 0 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the books of accounts so as to enable

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

80C of the Act, Rs.5,282/- u/s.80TTA of the Act and Rs.12,426/- u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

80C of the Act, Rs.5,282/- u/s.80TTA of the Act and Rs.12,426/- u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

80C of the Act, Rs.5,282/- u/s.80TTA of the Act and Rs.12,426/- u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

80C of the Act, Rs.5,282/- u/s.80TTA of the Act and Rs.12,426/- u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld

D.C.I.T, CIR-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI CHANDRA KUMAR RATHI, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkeyand Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A No. 2431/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 144 of the Act and he went ahead with the Best Judgment Assessment. So, the difference of the amount of Rs. 65,71,645/- was deemed to be the unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved by the decision