Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata v. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited

388 ITR 574High Court2016#3020 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata v. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited authority for?

Assessments under section 153A and 153C require the existence of incriminating material found during search or requisition. The scope of these assessments is limited to undisclosed income found in such seized material.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax · Kolkata v. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited · 388 ITR 574 · section 153A · section 153C · search assessment · incriminating material · undisclosed income

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 131Section 132(4)Section 68Section 132Section 144Section 153CSection 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbe(1)section 158basection 113retraction of statementsection 50c(1)section 40a(ia)section 142(2a)section 156income tax settlement commissionjdasection 132apaper company

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata v. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited

Dolex Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cent-Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1620/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 68

…ITR 645 (Bombay) h) Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573(Orissa) i) Smt. Smruti Sudha Nayak Vs. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) j) Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) k) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s Salasar Stock Broking Ltd.2016 (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta) 6.3 The Ld.AR further submitted that the above legal position with regard to the assessments u/s 153A/153C as enunciated by various High Courts, now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in case of PCI…

Dolex Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cent-Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1619/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 68

…ITR 645 (Bombay) h) Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573(Orissa) i) Smt. Smruti Sudha Nayak Vs. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) j) Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) k) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s Salasar Stock Broking Ltd.2016 (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta) 6.3 The Ld.AR further submitted that the above legal position with regard to the assessments u/s 153A/153C as enunciated by various High Courts, now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in case of PCI…

Dolex Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cent-Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1618/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 68

…ITR 645 (Bombay) h) Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573(Orissa) i) Smt. Smruti Sudha Nayak Vs. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) j) Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) k) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s Salasar Stock Broking Ltd.2016 (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta) 6.3 The Ld.AR further submitted that the above legal position with regard to the assessments u/s 153A/153C as enunciated by various High Courts, now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in case of PCI…

Dolex Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cent-Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1598/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 68

…ITR 645 (Bombay) h) Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573(Orissa) i) Smt. Smruti Sudha Nayak Vs. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) j) Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) k) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s Salasar Stock Broking Ltd.2016 (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta) 6.3 The Ld.AR further submitted that the above legal position with regard to the assessments u/s 153A/153C as enunciated by various High Courts, now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in case of PCI…

Dolex Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Circale 8(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1597/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 68

…ITR 645 (Bombay) h) Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573(Orissa) i) Smt. Smruti Sudha Nayak Vs. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) j) Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) k) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s Salasar Stock Broking Ltd.2016 (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta) 6.3 The Ld.AR further submitted that the above legal position with regard to the assessments u/s 153A/153C as enunciated by various High Courts, now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in case of PCI…

Dolex Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT. Cent. Cir. 8(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1596/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 68

…ITR 645 (Bombay) h) Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573(Orissa) i) Smt. Smruti Sudha Nayak Vs. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) j) Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) k) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s Salasar Stock Broking Ltd.2016 (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta) 6.3 The Ld.AR further submitted that the above legal position with regard to the assessments u/s 153A/153C as enunciated by various High Courts, now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in case of PCI…

Dolex Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1595/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 68

…ITR 645 (Bombay) h) Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573(Orissa) i) Smt. Smruti Sudha Nayak Vs. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) j) Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) k) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s Salasar Stock Broking Ltd.2016 (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta) 6.3 The Ld.AR further submitted that the above legal position with regard to the assessments u/s 153A/153C as enunciated by various High Courts, now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in case of PCI…

Gopal Shashidhara, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…AO relied only on the assessee’s statement u/s 131 of the Act, which cannot by itself be treated as incriminating evidence. The ld. AR placed reliance on: • CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd (2016) 385 ITR 346 (Kar.) • CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Cal.) . ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 14 • PCIT v. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd (2023) 148 taxmann.com 313 (Calcutta) • Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) • PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) 7. It was stressed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (SC) has set…

Gopal Shashidhara, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…AO relied only on the assessee’s statement u/s 131 of the Act, which cannot by itself be treated as incriminating evidence. The ld. AR placed reliance on: • CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd (2016) 385 ITR 346 (Kar.) • CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Cal.) . ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 14 • PCIT v. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd (2023) 148 taxmann.com 313 (Calcutta) • Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) • PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) 7. It was stressed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (SC) has set…

Gopal Shashidhara, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…AO relied only on the assessee’s statement u/s 131 of the Act, which cannot by itself be treated as incriminating evidence. The ld. AR placed reliance on: • CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd (2016) 385 ITR 346 (Kar.) • CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Cal.) . ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 14 • PCIT v. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd (2023) 148 taxmann.com 313 (Calcutta) • Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) • PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) 7. It was stressed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (SC) has set…

Gopal Shashidhara, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 751/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…e AO relied only on the assessee's statement u/s 131 of the Act, which cannot by itself be treated as incriminating evidence. The Id. AR placed reliance on: • CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd (2016) 385 ITR 346 (Kar.) • CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Cal.) • PCIT v. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd (2023) 148 taxmann.com 313 (Calcutta) • Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) • PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) 7. It was stressed that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (SC) has settled the law that no addition can be made in resp…

Gopal Shashidhara, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 750/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…AO relied only on the assessee’s statement u/s 131 of the Act, which cannot by itself be treated as incriminating evidence. The ld. AR placed reliance on: • CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd (2016) 385 ITR 346 (Kar.) • CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Cal.) . ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 14 • PCIT v. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd (2023) 148 taxmann.com 313 (Calcutta) • Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) • PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) 7. It was stressed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (SC) has set…

Gopal Shashidhara, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalaore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 749/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…AO relied only on the assessee’s statement u/s 131 of the Act, which cannot by itself be treated as incriminating evidence. The ld. AR placed reliance on: • CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd (2016) 385 ITR 346 (Kar.) • CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Cal.) . ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 14 • PCIT v. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd (2023) 148 taxmann.com 313 (Calcutta) • Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) • PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) 7. It was stressed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (SC) has set…

Gopal Shashidhara, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 748/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…AO relied only on the assessee’s statement u/s 131 of the Act, which cannot by itself be treated as incriminating evidence. The ld. AR placed reliance on: • CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd (2016) 385 ITR 346 (Kar.) • CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Cal.) . ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 14 • PCIT v. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd (2023) 148 taxmann.com 313 (Calcutta) • Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) • PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) 7. It was stressed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (SC) has set…

Adhyatm Jain Prop. M/S Jambu Kumar Adhyatam Jain Saraf, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 787/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow06 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 68

…was taken, for example, in cases such as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Construction 387 ITR 523 (Guj), CIT vs. Continental Warehousing 374 ITR 645 (Bom.), Smt. Jami Nirmala vs. Pr.CIT 437 ITR 673 (Orissa), CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (Cal.), Pr.CIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. 443 ITR 574 (Kar.), Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Delhi), Dr. A. V. Sreekumar vs. CIT 404 ITR 642 (Ker.), Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Daksha Jain 2019 (8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan), etc.; courts took a view in favour of Revenue in cases reported as CIT vs. Rajkumar Arora (supra), CIT vs. Mahndipur…

Ocean Dream Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 146/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 68

…was taken, for example, in cases such as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Construction 387 ITR 523 (Guj), CIT vs. Continental Warehousing 374 ITR 645 (Bom.), Smt. Jami Nirmala vs. Pr.CIT 437 ITR 673 (Orissa), CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (Cal.), Pr.CIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. 443 ITR 574 (Kar.), Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Delhi), Dr. A. V. Sreekumar vs. CIT 404 ITR 642 (Ker.), Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Daksha Jain 2019 (8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan), etc.; courts took a view in favour of Revenue in cases reported as CIT vs. Rajkumar Arora (supra), CIT vs. Mahndipur…

Shashi Agarwal, Lucknow vs. DCIT-1, Lucknow

In the result, these two appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

…was taken, for example, in cases such as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Construction 387 ITR 523 (Guj), CIT vs. Continental Warehousing 374 ITR 645 (Bom.), Smt. Jami Nirmala vs. Pr.CIT 437 ITR 673 (Orissa), CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (Cal.), Pr.CIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. 443 ITR 574 (Kar.), Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Delhi), Dr. A. V. Sreekumar vs. CIT 404 ITR 642 (Ker.), Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Daksha Jain 2019 (8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan), etc.; courts took a view in favour of Revenue in cases reported as CIT vs. Rajkumar Arora (supra), CIT vs. Mahndipur…

Shashi Agarwal, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Lucknow

In the result, these two appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

…was taken, for example, in cases such as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Construction 387 ITR 523 (Guj), CIT vs. Continental Warehousing 374 ITR 645 (Bom.), Smt. Jami Nirmala vs. Pr.CIT 437 ITR 673 (Orissa), CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (Cal.), Pr.CIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. 443 ITR 574 (Kar.), Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Delhi), Dr. A. V. Sreekumar vs. CIT 404 ITR 642 (Ker.), Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Daksha Jain 2019 (8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan), etc.; courts took a view in favour of Revenue in cases reported as CIT vs. Rajkumar Arora (supra), CIT vs. Mahndipur…

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…2022 (8) TMI 966 (Karnataka) Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573(Orissa) Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak Vs.Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) Commissioner of Income Tax,Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s.Salasar Stock Broking Ltd.2016 (8) TMI 1131(Calcutta) Dr. A.V. Sreekumar Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut (2018) 404 ITR 642 (Kerala) M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. The appellant further submits that the above legal…

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC-2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…2022 (8) TMI 966 (Karnataka) Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573(Orissa) Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak Vs.Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) Commissioner of Income Tax,Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s.Salasar Stock Broking Ltd.2016 (8) TMI 1131(Calcutta) Dr. A.V. Sreekumar Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut (2018) 404 ITR 642 (Kerala) M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. The appellant further submits that the above legal…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata v. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (388 ITR 574) — Cited in 39 Judgments | BharatTax