AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

68, read with section , read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) (Accommodation entry) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Information was received from Information was received from 6 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. investigation wing that assessee investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

68,583/- being employers' contribution under being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

139\nof the Act, these grounds of appeal are allowed and the finding of the\nLd. CIT(A) are reversed and the Ld. AO is directed to allow deduction\nu/s 54F of the Act to the assessee as per law. Hence, Ground Nos.\n2, 3 and 4 are allowed and the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are reversed\nand

K.A.WIRES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 K.A. Wires Ltd...………………………………………………………..................................……………..….......Appellant Chatterjee Intl Centre 11Th Floor Room No. 11 33A, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aadck 7401 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Kolkata…..…................................................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Adovate & Shri N.P. Jain, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R & Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 4Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 22Nd, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 23/04/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Zinc Manufacturing. It Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 07/09/2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.(-)Rs.37,99,257/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30/03/2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,02,00,743/- Interalia Making An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received By The Company From Three (3) Associate Companies. Out Of This Rs,1,40,00,000/- Addition, The Assessing Officer States That A Protective Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Is Made In The Hands Of The Intermediary Companies. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer. 3. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us.

68 of the Act, the Bench has been consistently remanding , the Bench has been consistently remanding such matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with

ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

1) of the Act along with questionnaire on various occasions and on few occasions, there was no compliance, however the assessee filed the details/ evidences as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. AO noted that the assessee has received unsecured loans from Funidea Promoters Limited of ₹1.00 Cr during the year. Finally, the ld. AO treated

M/S. DIGNAGAR SAMABAI KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITI LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High 5 AY: 2018-19 M/s. Dignagar Samabai Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd. Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1

KISHOREPUR PASCHIMANCHAL S K U S LIMITED,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Kishorepur Paschimanchal Skus Limited Income Tax Officer, Bandipur, Malay Bandipur Ward-23(1), Hooghly Vs B.O. Bandipur Hooghly - 712617 [Pan : Aacak9370Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 13/10/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 6,32,082/- By A.O. (Cpc) On The Ground Of Belated Filing Of Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Delay In Filing Of Return Of Income Was Occasioned Due To Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Denial Of Benefit U/S 80P On Account Of Delay In Filing Return Of Income Was Beyond The Jurisdiction Of The A.O. (Cpc) While Exercising Power Of Processing Return Of Income U/S 143(1).” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 6,32,082/- Claimed By

1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

JAGANNATH KARBARH DESHAPRAN SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,EGRA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 667/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jagannath Karbarh Deshapran Skus Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Jagannath Karbarh Ward-27(4), Haldia Vs Pirijkhanbarh Egra Purba Medinipur -721422 [Pan : Aacaj0089M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/09/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. (Cpc) In Denying Deduction U/S Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 15,31,190/- For Belated Filing Of The Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Reason For Belated Filing Of Return Of Income Was Beyond The Control Of The Society. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Issue Was Debatable & The Adjustment U/S 143(1) Was Not Permissible In Law.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 15,31,190/- Claimed

1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1

SANTIPUR THANA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,NADIA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

1)(a)(v) of the Act. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

JATRAPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,NADIA vs. DCIT, CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

1)(a)(v) of the Act. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 are satisfied. 12. As far as applicability of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned, the question before us is limited to the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. The section insofar as it is relevant for our purpose is as below: "Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance or deduction

ITO, WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHOK TRADING COMPANY, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shrin.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

68,894/- 2 M/s Mangalam Privahan Pvt. Ltd. 1,95,823/- ITA No.650/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Wd-45(2) Kol v. M/s Ashok Trading Co. Page 3 So the above expenses has been disallowed and added to the income of assessee. Before the Ld. CIT(A) , the assessee demonstrated that all the parties to whom the payments were made

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the I.T. Act. iii. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. AO framed the assessment order u/s 143(3) vide order dated 14.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18 of the Act. The assessee in its return of income disclosing total income

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 of the Paper Book. – Kindlysee Para 10 onwards of the Judgement at Pages 63 to 66 of the Paper Book. Pleasesee Para 10 wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court referred to the Judgement ofApex Court in the case of HarshadShantilal Mehta and held that tax does not includeInterest or penalty. 4.4 Now, I refer to the Judgement

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

139. Therefore, the AO has rightly rejected the claim of Foreign Tax Credit of the appellant as not allowable to the appellant. Hence, I do not find infirmity in the order of the AO. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal

DESANA POLY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

MAITHAN ALLOYS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited