SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

154 of the Act when the assessee filed form 67 before the AO. In our opinion the credit in respect of foreign tax cannot be denied to the assessee for the technicality of not filing the form 67 within the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

154 of the Act when the assessee filed form 67 before the AO. In our opinion the credit in respect of foreign tax cannot be denied to the assessee for the technicality of not filing the form 67 within the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision

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

154 of the Act were passed on 11.07.2022 and 05.08.2022 but the credit for the claim of foreign taxes was not allowed. Similar issue also came up for consideration before the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramakrishna Rao Chintalapudi Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar in ITA No. 541/KOL/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21, order

DEBANJAN CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. D.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1959/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Debanjan Chatterjee,……..…………….…………Appellant C-3/14, East Enclave Cooperative Society, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156 [Pan:Aezpc7707H] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,………………Respondent Cpc, Bengluru, Bangalore-560500 Appearances By: Shri Nilesh Kariya, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 02, 2024 O R D E R

154 of the Act when the assessee filed form 67 before the AO. In our opinion the credit in respect of foreign tax cannot be denied to the assessee for the technicality of not filing the form 67 within the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision

R S ISPAT LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act wherein it was inter alia pointed out that, the reasons for which the assessment was reopened viz., unexplained purchases of Rs.3,46,77,884/- had already been added back in the original assessment u/s 143(3) and therefore the addition made in the impugned reassessment

GOBINDA ADHIKARY,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. WARD 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated 15.09.2022 relates to tax rate u/s 115BBE and no order in appeal against the assessment order u/s 147/144/144B of the ITA No.: 2802/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gobinda Adhikary. Act has been enclosed. Therefore, the order dated 29.09.2025 mentioned in Form No. 36 relating to the appeal u/s

RAHUL ANAND,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC,, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

154 of the Act there is no change in the computation of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act as the same has been correctly computed while processing, thereby, inter- alia implying that the credit for FTC was denied. The assessee relied upon the decision of in ITA No. 78/KOL/2024 and brought our attention to page

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

reassessment order, to set up or canvass its correctness in collateral proceedings taken for rectification thereof u/s 154. The bench

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

reassessment is different from the power of review. Here, your kind attention is drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) wherein what constitutes disclosure of primary facts was discussed and it was held that, 17 "There can be no doubt that

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

154 of the Act filed was rejected. After analysis of the computation sheet, it was noted that the income from capital gains shown at Rs. 68,28,041/- was not correct which as per the final revised return at pages 22 to 27 of the paper book was shown at Rs. ‘NIL’ on account of short term capital gains earned

ANINDYA SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALRU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

154 of the Act when the assessee filed form 67 before the AO. In our opinion the credit in respect of foreign tax cannot be denied to the assessee for the technicality of not filing the form 67 within the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds 5 Anindya Sarkar

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-11(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

154 of the Act, assessee had specifically raised the issue in para 6 and, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that assessee had not raised this issue. As far as the calculation of interest u/s. 244A of the Act is concerned, he stated that this refund is arising out of TDS credit available with the assessee. He stated that

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’).

reassessment order, to set up or canvass its correctness in collateral proceedings taken for rectification thereof u/s 154. The bench

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant Flat 6C, Block 2, Shree Ramnagar Residential Complex, Vip Road, Tegharia, W.B – 700052. [Pan: Actpa2426P] Vs. Ito, Kolkata……………..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Puja Agarwal, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 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’). 2. The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Who Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.12.2021 For The Financial Year 2020-21 Relevant To Assessment Year 2021-22 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.25,58,440/-. The Assessee Discharged Her Tax Liability By Way Of Tax Deducted At Source Amounting To Rs.2,80,028/-, Self-Assessment Tax Of Rs.22,740/- & Foreign Tax Credit (‘Ftc’) Of Rs.2,25,936/-. The Assessee Also Filed Form.67 Which Was Filed On 25.01.2022. An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.10.2022 In Which The Ftc Was Not Provided To The Assessee. This Disallowance Resulted In Tax Demand Of Rs.2,79,130/-.

154 of the Act were passed on 11.07.2022 and 05.08.2022 but the credit for the claim of foreign taxes was not allowed. Similar issue also came up for consideration before the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramakrishna Rao Chintalapudi Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar in ITA No. 541/KOL/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21, order

M/S. OPLUS STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. SWATI CONCAST & POWER PRIVATE LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

154 of the Act was passed by the AO by making an addition of Rs. 11,04,04,747/-. 3. Aggrieved with the said rectification order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

OPLUS STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWATI CONCAST & POWER PRIVATE LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

154 of the Act was passed by the AO by making an addition of Rs. 11,04,04,747/-. 3. Aggrieved with the said rectification order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

SURRENDRA KUMAR GOENKA,HOWRAH vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU / I.T.O., WARD 61(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

154 of the Act when the assessee filed form 67 before the AO. In our opinion the credit in respect of foreign tax cannot be denied to the assessee for the technicality of not filing the form 67 within the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision

VAIBHAV DAS MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

154 r.w.s 143(1) and the submission made by the appellant has been considered. The appellant is a resident and ordinarily resident (ROR) of India during AY 2021-22 as per the provisions of the Act and accordingly, subject to tax on his global income in India during AY 2021-22. The appellant for the relevant previous year earned income