ITAT Kolkata Bench
22,199 judgments
NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(3), KOLKATA
NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA
SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
KALIPADA NASKAR,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 61(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President)
ASIATIC INDUSTRIES,,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 26(4),, KOLKATA
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)
NOKARI SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,,NADIA vs ITO, WARD 41(3), , NADIA
the Hon'ble Tribunal. Along with Form No.
NOKARI SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,,NADIA vs ITO, WARD 41(3),, NADIA
the Hon'ble Tribunal. Along with Form No.
M/S. SHREE MAHESHWARI VIDYALAYA,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT,, KOLKATA
YUSUF SEIKH,BARDHAMAN vs ITO, WARD 1(1), , BARDHAMAN
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)
RAGHIB ALI,KOLKATA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 44(2), KOLKATA
the Ld. CIT(A) where an exparte order was passed, dismissing the assessee's appeal. 1.2 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal challenging the impugned additions.1.3 Before us, the AR briefly took us through the facts of the case and stated that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax counsel, proper representation could not be made at the first appeal stage. 1.4 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of
DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs DEBEANJANA HARD COKE PRIVATE LIMITED, HETEDOBA
the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”
TRINCAS AGENCIES COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,DADAR, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL
us, the Ld. Authorized Representative argued on the merits of the case and assailed the action of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in not granting the adjournment for preparing a reply even when the matter was old and records had to be collected from various places.2.1 The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of authorities below.
DCIT CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs ZEN STOCK AND SHARE BROKING PVT LTD, KOLKATA
M/S. SHROFF TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)
ANKUR DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs PCIT, KOLKATA - 2,, KOLKATA
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)
UMANG WEBTECH PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 14(1), KOLKATA
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)
GOUTAM SAHA,NADIA vs ITO, WARD 41(1), , NADIA
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)
ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL AND ORS HUF,KOLKATA vs A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)
BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA
SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
MOHAMMED SAJID KHAN,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
