Section 250 of the Income Tax Act

M/S Subrata Chatterjee, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Bwn, Kolkata

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Subrata Chatterjee.…………………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant Vill. Dhuluk P.O. Nabagram Burdwan- 713166 [Pan : Abjfs 9847 D] Acit, Circle-2, Burdwan…………………………………………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. Dasgupta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 2Nd , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 24Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 22/12/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is In The Business Of Undertaking Contract Works. 3. After Hearing Rival Contentions, A Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:- 4. Ground No.1, Is Against The Disallowance Of Rs.31,300/- . The Assessee States That The Amount Was Paid To A Local Association & It Was Required To Be Paid For Smooth Conduct Of Business Of The Assessee. The Revenue States That, Whatsoever, The Institution To Which The Amount Has Been Given, Is Not Registered U/S 80G Of The Act & Hence No Deduction Can Be Granted To The Assessee. I Find That The Assessee Has Not Produced Any Receipt Of Having Made This Donation To The Local Club. Hence, The Ld. Cit(A) Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee. I Find No Infirmity In This Action Of The Ld. Cit(A). Hence, Ground No. 1, Is Dismissed.

M/S Ghosh Trading, Kolkata vs. ITO, 49 (4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 243/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ghosh Trading........................................................................................................Appellant Fb-9, Arundhuti Apartment, Chaul Patty Road, Baguiati, Kolkata – 700 059. [Pan : Aagfg 7777 A] Income Tax Officer...................…………………………………….....................................Respondent Ward 49(4), Manicktala Civic Centre, Uttrapan Complex, Kolkata – 700 054. Appearances By: Shri D.K. Saha, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 24, 2018 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) – Xxxii, Kolkata On 05.11.2014 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessee Is A Firm & Is A Distributor Of Recharge Vouchers, Sim Card Of Bharti Airtel Limited. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2010 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 1,38,763/- . The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment Under Section 250 Of The Act On 31.01.2013 Determining The Total Income Of Rs. 11,66,730/-.

Shri Arup Kumar Bhowmick, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-I, Burdwan

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

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Vs Acit, Arup Kumar Bhowmick, Puratan Chak, P.O.Nutanganj, Circle-1, Distt.-Burdwan-713102. Burdwan. Pan-Aefpb3107E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2018 Order

Shri Anil Kumar Kedia, Paschim Medinipore vs. DCIT, Circle - 39, Midnapore, Paschim Medinipur

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

M/S. Ketan Saraf Benefit Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 22(2), Kolkata

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ketan Saraf Benefit Trust….………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant R. No. 408 4Th Floor 85, N S Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabtk 7897 E] Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(2), Kolkata….……………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Provas Roy, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 24Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/03/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice By Rpad. There Was No Application Moved By The Assessee For Adjournment Either. Under The Circumstances We Dispose Of The Case Ex-Parte On Merits Qua The Assessee After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. After Hearing The Ld. D/R & Perusing The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), I Find That The Assessee Has Not Appeared Before The Ld. Cit(A) & Hence & Ex-Parte Order Was Passed. As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Disposed Off The Case On Merits, I Deem It Fit To Restore The Issue To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A), For Fresh Adjudication, In Accordance With Law, After Giving The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard, On The Grounds Of Natural Justice. While Doing So, We Levy A Cost Of Rs.10,000/- On The Assessee For Having Not Appeared Before The Ld. Cit(A) As Well As Before Me In This Proceeding.

Kaushik Ghosh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-44, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kaushik Ghosh..........................…..…….……………………..……………………………………………….…..Appellant 15, Raja Sew Box Bagla Lane Kolkata – 700 004 [Pan : Adlpg 5836 A] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata..........................……………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

M/S Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Instrumentarium Corporation Limited………………..………………………………..……….……....Appellant P.O. Box 100, Fi-00031 Ge, Finland Cc: Pricewterhouse Coopers South City Pinnacle 7Th Floor Plot No.Xi-I Sector V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aadcg 1535 E] Ddit (I.T.)-1(1), Kolkata.….....................................................................................….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sachit Jolly, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’), Dt. 09/06/2009. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Assessment Year Of This Common Order. 2. The Appeals Bearing No’S Ita No. 1548 & 1549/Kol/2009 , For The Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2004-05, Were Referred By The Hon’Ble, Itat To A Special Bench Vide Order Dt. 6Th April, 2010, To Answer The Following Re-Framed Question.

Binoy Poddar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 33(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Sushil Kumar Bengani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sushil Kumar Bengani………………………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant Rampuria Chambers 10 Clive Row 4Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aazpb 9167 E] Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(2), Kolkata………………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri H.V. Bharadwaj, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mandal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 10/01/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. After Hearing Rival Contentions, I Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Giving Reasons As To Why He Could Not Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A). On Going Through The Reasons & Hearing The Arguments Of Both The Sides, I Am Convinced That He Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Appearing Before The Revenue Authorities.

Sabita Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 40(4), Kolkata

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sabita Agarwal………....………………………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 36-A, Bentinck Street 2Nd Floor Town Esplanade Kolkata – 700 089 [Pan : Adlpa 2112 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(4), Kolkata………………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mandal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 10/01/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. After Hearing Rival Contentions, I Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Giving Reasons As To Why He Could Not Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A). On Going Through The Reasons & Hearing The Arguments Of Both Sides, I Am Convinced That He Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Appearing Before The Revenue Authorities.

Mahesh Kumar Narula, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Narula……………………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 1St Floor 3, Amratolla Street Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Abopn 8174 H] Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(4), Kolkata………………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri M.P. Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mandal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 10/01/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is A Tea Merchant As Well As A Commission Agent. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Took Unsecured Loans Of Rs.2,74,55,805/-. The Interest Paid On The Loans Varied Between 12% To 15%. The Assessee Runs A Proprietary Concern Under The Name & Style Of M/S. Mahesh Trading Company. The Assessee Had Advanced Loans To The Tune Of Rs.2,16,61,849/-, To M/S. Ramdurlabhpur Tea Co. Ltd., A Sister Concern Of The Assessee Company, On 16/04/2013. The Board Of Directors Of M/S. Ramdurlabhpur Tea Co. Ltd. Met & In View Of The Bad Financial Position Of The Company & Also Due To The Fact That, The Management Could Not Enter The Tea Estates Without Police Protection Due To Unrest In Tripura The Interests On The Loans Was Decided To Be Serviced @ 6% Only, Instead Of The Earlier Rate Of Interest Agreed To. The Copy Of The Board Resolution Has Been Placed On Record. The Change In The Circumstances Were Explained.

M/S. Arghama Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Kolkata

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Arghama Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd…..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 158, Lenin Sarani 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan : Aaeca 9672 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kolkata…………………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mandal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 18/01/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. After Hearing Rival Contentions, I Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Giving Reasons As To Why He Could Not Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A) On Going Through The Reasons Given By The Assessee, I Am Convinced That He Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Appearing Before The Revenue Authorities.