ITAT Kolkata Bench

DCIT CC 2 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs PREMIER ROAD CARRIERS LIMITED, KOLKATA

VINOD BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2),, KOLKATA

the assessing officer during assessment proceedings and therefore the issue may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs SATISH SINGH, KOLKATA

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

M/S BLUPEX NIRYAT PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), KOLKATA

the AO name, address, PAN, balance sheet, bank statement etc. to prove the genuineness of share application money received. The ADIT (Inv.), Unit 3(4) issued summons under Section 131 of the Act to the allottee company which was not responded. We note that the assessee has issued 10,000 equity shares at the face value of Rs.10/- and premium of Rs.90/-. Consequently, the AO added the amount under Section 68 of the Act which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs SIDDHESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

PADMAKSHI CHAKRABORTY,BEHALA PARNASREE vs AAYAKAR BHAWAN DAKSHIN, GARIAHAT ROAD

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

RAMESHWAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3),, KOLKATA

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

DILIP KUMAR SHOW,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 30(6), AAYAKAR BHAWAN DAKSHIN

any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688, ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for a

MAHAK DOSHI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ADITYA DOSHI,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, KOLKATA

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

ABISHEK KUMAR PRASAD,SILIGURI vs I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), SILIGURI

Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

DEBASIS MUKHOPADHYAY,HOWRAH vs I.T.O., WARD - 61(1),, KOLKATA

the Assessing Officer that he never executed any transactions in multiple commodity exchange through broker Kalkut Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. and even stated that he did not know about the above mentioned broker. However, the Assessing Officer made an addition to the income of the assessee of ₹ 4,01,687/- as undisclosed income which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

SUKLA BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 22(2),, KOLKATA

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

SREE RAMAKRISHNA PREMA BIHAR,KOLKATA vs ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD 1(3),, KOLKATA

CIT(A). We observe that the assessee is a trust duly registered u/s 12A of the Act and has claimed deduction from gross income qua the application of funds which inadvertently shown in the wrong column while punching the return of income online. Consequently, the AO-CPC disallowed the claim of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be well served if the issue is restored to the file of JAO with the direction to decide the sam

SREE RAMAKRISHNA PREMA BIHAR,KOLKATA vs ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD 1(3),, KOLKATA

CIT(A). We observe that the assessee is a trust duly registered u/s 12A of the Act and has claimed deduction from gross income qua the application of funds which inadvertently shown in the wrong column while punching the return of income online. Consequently, the AO-CPC disallowed the claim of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be well served if the issue is restored to the file of JAO with the direction to decide the sam

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs TECHNO ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, UTTAR PRADESH

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

M/S. SWABHUMI VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1),, KOLKATA

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

DCIT, KOLKATA vs RURAL ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

ROY BANERJEE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, KOLKATA

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

ST. THOMAS SYRO MALABAR CATHOLIC CHURCH,KOLKATA vs CIT (EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

SOUMIK CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 33(2),, KOLKATA

the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant filed statement of computation of income claiming tax relief of Rs.2,20,926/- (foreign tax credit) instead of Rs.5,22,964/- as claimed in his revised return of income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the Form 67 was not filed in time. In our opinion the foreign tax credit cannot be denied mere for the reason of late filing of form 67. We note that the case is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate Benches