ITAT Kolkata Bench
22,285 judgments
ASHOK KUMAR BHOTIKA,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA
the Ld. CIT(A) also and has thus approached the ITAT with as many as 16 grounds which may be summarized issue-wise as under: (i) The application of section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- has been assailed on the ground of perversity (ii) The re-opening of the case u/s 147 of the Act has been challenged, both on the grounds of non-application of mind and as being based on allegedly dubious facts. (iii) Denial of opportunity to examine the material available with the Ld. AO, on
UTTAM DAS,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA vs A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
BALA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,WEST MIDNAPUR vs A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 38, WEST MIDNAPUR
SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
BALA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,WEST MIDNAPUR vs A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 38, MIDNAPUR, WEST MIDNAPUR
SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
BALA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,WEST MIDNAPUR vs A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 38, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR
SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA
SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs JIVENDRA MISHRA, KOLKATA
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs THE CALCUTTA SWIMMING CLUB, KOLKATA
Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)
M/S. ANOOP TEA CO. PVT. LTD.,SILIGURI vs D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3),, KOLKATA
ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA
proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.
ACIT , CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA vs SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA
proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.
PANACHE DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs P.C.I.T., CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ), Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member)
DHRUV VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(2) , KOLKATA
SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
MADHU DEVI SARAF,KOLKATA vs ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA
us. It is seen
BURNPUR POLYFABS PRIVATE LIMITED,HOWRAH vs ACIT CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL
Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)
AMIT SHRIVASTAV,MUMBAI vs THE ASSESSMENT UNIT - NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER (NFAC), DELHI
the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant pleaded that the differential was less than 10% but more than 5% (being the tolerance available for the assessment year in question) and hence for the year under consideration the safe harbour limit of 5% only would apply and since the impugned amount was more than that limit, he sustained the addition.
DIVYA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA
the ITAT through the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.
SILICONN INFRACON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA
the Ld. AO. The single grievance that arises from the I.T.A. No.53/Kol/2024 Silicon Infracon Pvt. Ltd.
BASUDEBPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,MURSHIDABAD vs ITO, WARD-42(1), MURSHIDABAD
SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
