DCIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEWARI WAREHOUSING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Dcit, Circle-26 M/S Tewari Warehousing Co. बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan Hide Shed Dump, Old V/S. Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Goragacha Road, Kolkata-88 Road, (South), [Pan No.Aacft 5579 K] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Vikash Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit, Range- 53, Kolkata U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Entire Gross Receipts S Business Income & Allow Deductions As Per Section 28 To 43 Of The It Act When Rental Income Of Rs.2,31,00,000/- Was Already Included In The Gross Receipts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Estimation Of Business Profits Of Rs.2,37,72,132/- Made By The Ao Though Rejection Of Assessee’S Books Of Account U/S 145(3) Considering The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Contrary To The Law & Fact Of The Case. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To, Add To, Alter Or Modify Any One Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Above.”

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue. 3. The brief description about the assessee-firm is that it is partnership firm and engaged in providing warehousing, go-down, blending and packing services. The assessee is providing such services under the agreements with the big tea companies such as Tata Tea, Hindustan Unilever (HUL), Pataka Tea etc. Such activity

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. 14. The only effective issue raised in the grounds of appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law in upholding the order of AO wherein the AO has denied the benefit of exemption claimed

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the action

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal, out of which Ground No. 2 is the substantial ground of appeal. In this ground, the grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of ld. Assessing Officer vide which deduction of interest

BHABATARINI GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1) , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.2629/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Bhabatarini Griha Nirman Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central-12(1), Kolkata. Ltd. South Block, Ideal Plaza, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcb9211C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed In Case No.620/Cit(A)-4/C-12(1)/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reason Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition Dated 19.12.18 & On Account Of No Objection From The Revenue Side, We Condone Its 11 Days’ Delay In Filing Of The Main Appeal Stated To Be Attributable To Communication Gap & Compilation Of Necessary Records. The Main Appeal Is Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits.

condone its 11 days’ delay in filing of the main appeal stated to be attributable to communication gap and compilation of necessary records. The main appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. I.T.A No.2629/Kol/2018 3. Coming to main appeal, we notice that the sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowing business loss of Rs.8

SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

VINOD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

RAM NARESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANUKA VENTURES PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1413/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 7883 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay of the revenue and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 M/s Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in directing the ld AO to treat the receipt from M/s Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd as Business income

DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AVANTHA REALTY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi & On Considering The Facts & Circumstances, The Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi Was Pleased To Hold That The Delay Of 19 Days Is Not Extraordinary & Explanation Offered By The Appellant-Revenue To Be Plausible & On Merits. The Hon’Ble High Court Was Pleased To Set Aside The Order Passed By This Tribunal & Restored The Appeal To The File Of This Tribunal For Disposal In Accordance With Law. Therefore The Delay Of 19 Days Are Condoned.

delay of 19 days are condoned. I.T.A No.895/Kol/2014 M/s Avantha Realty Ltd. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, the only issue raised by the appellant-Revenue is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made on account of difference between rent received by the assessee and fair market value for the properties

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n1.3 Since the issues are common, all the eight appeals were heard\ntogether and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of\nconvenience and brevity.\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.\n466/KOL/2018:\n“1) That on the facts and circumstances

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

condoned, without providing any reasons. 4. Concluding that there is no "sufficient cause” for delay, without appreciating the facts and circumstances. 5. Not appreciating that the delay in filing of appeal was not deliberate, malafide or intentional, but due to a bonafide belief and reasonable cause. 6. Not appreciating that the Appellant would be put to undue injustice

DCIT, CIR-13(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CALCUTTA MUMBAI TRUCK TERMINAL LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Kolkata.……………………..….Appellant Ayakar Bhavan Poorva 6Th Floor R. No. 610 110, Shantipally Kolkata – 700 107 Calcutta Mumbai Truck Terminal Ltd………………………………………………….……...Respondent 545, G.T. Road (South) Howrah - 711102 [Pan : Aabcc 0747 Q] Appearances By: Shri R.S. Sahay, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 20Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 1St March, 2018 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan :-

delay is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue reads as follows:- “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the Rental income against various capital assets as assessee’s business income. 2 I.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Calcutta Mumbai Truck Terminal

SOMA MUKHOPADHYAY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 49(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances

THE W.B. STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2006-07

delayed by 295 days and a condonation petition has been filed. In the said application the assessee has submitted as under: 2 The W.B. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd., “In the Form No. 36 relating to the aforesaid Appeal filed by the WBSCARDB Ltd., date of order of the CIT was erroneously mentioned as January

RINA RAY,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2),, DARJEELING

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

house measuring 1000 Sqft., before his death in the year 1978 leaving his legal heirs, his wife and his two daughters, Smt. Rina Ray (Appellant), and Smt. Sampa Ghosh. The appellant and her sister became the owners in possession having equal share in the aforesaid properties of their late father on demise of their mother. The appellant and her sister

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing as the reasons cited are bonafide and sufficient. 3. The issue raised in ground no.1 is deletion of addition of ₹8,07,00,000/- by the learned CIT (A) as made by the learned AO on account of unsecured loans taken by the assessee during the year. 3.1. The facts

RAJEEV KEJRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 33(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. THAT THE CIT (APPEAL), NFAC WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF Rs 1682453 treating the same as income though it represented outstanding housing loan from Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. 2. That