CIT v. Jayantial Ramanlal & Co.

DCIT CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. S K SARAWAGI AND COMPANY PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the revenue succeeds partially\non this issue.\n\n7.\nConsidering the discussion above, the Revenue's appeals are partly\nallowed

…High Court on that question.\"\n\nThe above ruling that the decision of another High Court should be followed unless there is\na contrary decision of another High Court was approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court\nin CIT vs. Jayantial Ramanlal & Co. [1982] 137 ITR 257/8 Taxman 188, Siemens India Ltd.\nvs. K. Subramanian, ITO [1983] 143 ITR 120/13 Taxman 146 and R. Parthasarathy, Asstt.\nCollector of Central Excise vs. Dipsi Chemicals (P.) Ltd. [1988] 173 ITR 497 (Bom.).\n\nThe ITAT, Panaji Bench in ITO v. Dilip Shirodkar [2004] 2 SOT 947, also expressed the view\nthat once a higher authority than the Tribunal…

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. S K SARAWAGI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: The O/O Pcit-2, Kolkata 23.01.2024 Certificate Of Filing 2Nd Appeal Was Received From The O/O Pr. Cit-2, Kolkata 24.01.2024 Necessary Hardcopies Of Documents/ Paper/ Details Required For Filing 2Nd Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata Were Collected & Prepared. 25.01.2024 2Nd Appeal Was Filed

…other High Court on that question." The above ruling that the decision of another High Court should be followed unless there is a contrary decision of another High Court was approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jayantial Ramanlal & Co. [1982] 137 ITR 257/8 Taxman 188, Siemens India Ltd. vs. K. Subramanian, ITO [1983] 143 ITR 120/13 Taxman 146 and R. Parthasarathy, Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs. Dipsi Chemicals (P.) Ltd. [1988] 173 ITR 497 (Bom.). The ITAT, Panaji Bench in ITO v. Dilip Shirodkar [2004] 2 SOT 947, also expressed the view that once a higher authority than the Tribunal has e…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

…other High Court on that question." The above ruling that the decision of another High Court should be followed unless there is a contrary decision of another High Court was approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jayantial Ramanlal & Co. [1982] 137 ITR 257/8 Taxman 188, Siemens India Ltd. vs. K. Subramanian, ITO [1983] 143 ITR 120/13 Taxman 146 and R. Parthasarathy, Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs. Dipsi Chemicals (P.) Ltd. [1988] 173 ITR 497 (Bom.). The ITAT, Panaji Bench in ITO v. Dilip Shirodkar [2004] 2 SOT 947, also expressed the view that once a higher authority than the Tribunal has ex…

M/S. FIRST FORGE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी पी. एम.जगताप, उपा"य" एवं "ी ए.ट". वक","या"यक सद"य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1240/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 M/s. First Forge Limited Vs. PCIT, CC-1, Kolkata PAN: AABCV 9216 F Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 04.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2019 For the Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv. For the Respondent Shri Radhe Shyam, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order of Pr.…