TERAI FRUITS COMPANY,SILIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, if he fulfils the following conditions, namely:— (a) the tax and interest payable as per the order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

270A is also imposable on account of under reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income once it is determined that the claim of deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is wrong.” 6. The Ld. AR has also filed the written submissions as under: “The basic issue is whether the interest received

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

270A is also imposable on account of under reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income once it is determined that the claim of deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is wrong.” 6. The Ld. AR has also filed the written submissions as under: “The basic issue is whether the interest received

VERTEX DEVELOPERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1974/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vertex Developers,……………………..…………Appellant Bd-150, Samarpally, Kestopur, Kolkata-700101 [Pan:Aajfv8233F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-40(1), Kolkata,/ Asst. Unit, Nfac, Office Of The Ito, Kolkata, 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001

section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act making an addition of Rs.22,11,750/-. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 98 days. 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine since the appeal is barred by limitation and since there was no response from