Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act

M/S. Gunny Dealers Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Tech-1, Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S Gunny Dealers Ltd…………………....................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcg0019R] Vs. Ito, Tech-1, Kolkata………….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.11.2023 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 In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Haye Considered That The Order U/S 143(3) Was Passed By An Authority Who Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Appellant & As Such, The Said Order Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of

Supreme & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.613/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Supreme & Co. Pvt. Ltd…………………………………...………....Appellant 53, Justice Chandra Madhav Road, West Bengal – 700020. [Pan: Aacca7232K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ramesh Kr. Varma, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.02.2024 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 In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Erred In Making Disallowance Of Rs.85,23,450/- U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposits Of Pf. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Ought Not To Have Made Any Disallowance In Respect Of Delayed Deposit Of Pf The Same Having Been Deposited Before The Due Date Of Furnishing Of The Return Of Income. 3. For That The Disallowance Of Rs.85,23,450/- U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposit Of Pf Was Wrong & Uncalled For. 4. Cit(A) Has Upheld The Disallowance Of A.O.”

M/S. Rpl Projects Limited, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 62/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rpl Projects Limited Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 24, Mangalam Building Vs Cpc, Bangalore 301, Hemant Basu Sarani Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecr3350D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Under These Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Instant Appeal Ex- Parte Qua The Assessee, On The Basis Of Available Records & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. We Have Heard The Ld. D/R & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs. 41,76,420/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc

Marda Collections Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and further directions as per para 8 are issued to the AO

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

North India Lpg Cylinders Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Kolkata

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.249/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 North India Lpg Cylinders Ltd.………....................…...……………....Appellant 12 Government Place, East Esplanade, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aadcn8006B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Kolkata….….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ashish Rastogi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 21, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 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 In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Delhi. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Company Did Not Get The Notice Served For Hearing Trom The Office Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Delhi. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Delhi, Had Erred In Making Disallowances On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Provident Fund & Employees State Insurance Of Rs. 14,54,713/.