ITAT Kolkata Bench
22,199 judgments
KISHORE CHAKRABORTY ,MALDA vs ITO, WARD 3(1), , MALDA
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)
SARIKA JHAWAR,HOWRAH vs ITO, WARD 47(2), , KOLKATA
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)
MAJAHELP NETWORK MARKETING PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJARAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)
ASHIRBAD VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 11(1), , KOLKATA
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)
HIFILL TRACON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CC-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)
HIFILL TRACON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CC-4(1), KOLKATA
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)
ETC ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 5(1),, KOLKATA
Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)
SAJAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 12(1), , KOLKATA
SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
CHANDRA SALES AGENCY,SIKKIM vs ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK
Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)
JIGAR SHAH,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD - 33(4), KOLKATA
the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. This being so, in the interest of justice, I grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the Id. Assessing Officer by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of Id. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to t
DHARMARAJ RICE MILL,BALIGUNI, NANOOR vs ACIT, CIRCLE3, SURI, SURI
us, the Ld. AR pointed out that the entire interest outgoing deserved to be treated as a revenue expenditure. It was averred that the assessee had gone in for extensive renovation of plant and machinery and the new plant and machinery was put to commercial use only from 01.04.2016. To this effect a certificate dated 30.03.2016 was placed before us for perusal. It was argued that the interest expense was allowable, in its entirety, as a revenue expense.
MARITIME MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 1(1),, KOLKATA
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)
SHRI RAM MULTICOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs A.C.I.T., CC - 3(4), , KOLKATA
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)
SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs P.C.I.T., SILIGURI
Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)
SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs P.C.I.T., SILIGURI
Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)
SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs P.C.I.T., SILIGURI
Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)
SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs P.C.I.T., SILIGURI
Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)
TAHIDUL ISLAM,MURSHIDABAD vs I.T.O., WARD - 42(3), MURSHIDABAD
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)
HOLLYFIELD TRADERS PVT. LTD.,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs CIT(A), KOLKATA
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)
