ITAT Kolkata Bench

NAWKIRAN PLYMERS PVT. LTD.(AMALGAMATED WITH NAWKIRAN POLYCHEM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 5(1),, KOLKATA

PRABHAT KUMAR CHAURASIA,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 37(1),, KOLKATA

M/S. SHREYANSH TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 5(1),, KOLKATA

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

BHAIRAB JNANANANDABABA SEVA SANGHA,HOOGHLY vs ITO, WARD 1(2), EXEMPT, , KOLKATA

M/S. GENESIS EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1) (EARLIER CIRCLE 12(1),, KOLKATA

CIT(A) did not consider the plea of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. After examining the documents placed before us, we find that on the basis of average investment which yielded exempt income during the year, the disallowance comes to Rs. 11,00,748/-. After allowing suo motto deduction in respect of the disallowance made by the assessee, the net disallowance worked out to Rs. 10,75,748/-. Consequently, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to restr

ASHOKE SEN,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

M/S. BIJNI DOOARS TEA COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

M/S. BIJNI DOOARS TEA COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs MGR AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

AMAR IRON UDYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA

AMAR IRON UDYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T., CC - 3(3), KOLKATA

AMSELOR COMMODITY TRADE LLP,DURGAPUR vs A.O., WARD - 1(1), DURGAPUR

AMSELOR COMMODITY TRADE LLP,DURGAPUR vs A.O., WARD - 1(1), DURGAPUR

DIPYAMAN DUTT,KOLKATA vs I.T.O.,WARD-7(1), KOLKATA

M/S. SUPRERSMELT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD 1(1),, KOLKATA

KIPPY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs ACIT, CC - 3(4), KOLKATA

JIWANSAGAR NIKETAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs ACIT, CC - 3(4),, KOLKATA

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

JERMELS ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs I.T.O., WARD-2(2), EXEMPTION,, SILIGURI

the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding the issues on merit. The Ld. AR therefore, prayed that the delay may be condoned as the reasons attributable to the late filing of

KIPPY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs ACIT, CC-3(4), KOLKATA

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

L.R. AGRO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,,SILIGURI vs ITO, WARD 1(1),, SILIGURI

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