Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT

206 ITR 718High Court1994#1483 most cited

What is Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT authority for?

An addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits cannot be made when there is no actual cash credit or flow of funds, such as in cases of share swaps or notional credits.

77

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT · Section 68 Income-tax Act 1961 · unexplained cash credit · share swap · notional credit · no actual cash flow · share capital addition · share premium · genuineness of transaction · addition u/s 68 deletion

Also reported as

26 ITD 236

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 1961Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 115BBESection 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

share capital and share premiumprincipal officershare application moneyaddition u/s 68admission of additional evidenceunexplained cash creditgenuineness of the transactionaddition under section 68entry operatorrule 46aincome-tax officersection 68

Judgments citing Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT

ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Dhankamal Commosaes Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2089/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…against the Revenue. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.9496 of 2017 is closed.” 4. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in t The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Co. vs Jatia Investment Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax Tax reported in 1994 206 ITR 718 Cal, held as follows: held as follows:- “6. The matter came up in appeal before the Tribunal and it was also argued “6. The matter came up in appeal before the Tribunal and it was also argued “6. The matter came up in appeal before the Tribunal and it was also argued that the companies had to reduce their indebtedness in view of that the companie…

Rakesh Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-48(1), New Delhi

ITA 2461/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishirakesh Aggarwal Vs Ito 66, Surya Kiran Building, K. G. Ward-48(1) Marg, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 110001 Pan: Aawpa1372M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 271Section 68

…o. 1, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in not admitting additional evidence filed before him. With regard to admissibility of additional evidences, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Electra Jaipur Pvt. Ltd. vs. IAC (1986) 26 ITD 236 (Delhi) 2. Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & others 167 ITR 471 (SC) (When Substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred) 3. Bonanze Stock Broker vs. ITO (ITAno. 1002/Del/2006) (If the evidence goes to the root of the matter and is essential for r…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Alishan Steels Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 68

…inding of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer in the remand report and the ratio of the judicial pronouncements cited on behalf of the assessee-company including the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Co. –vs.- CIT [206 ITR 718], the ld. CIT(Appeals) held that section 68 had no application when the shares were allotted by the assessee-company under a barter system. He accordingly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68. 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by th…

Blooming Tradelink (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2691/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…its shares, therefore, no 2 I.T.A. No. 2691/Kol/2018 Blooming Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Assessment Year: 2012-13 addition u/s. 68 of the Act can be made. In support of its submission, the Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: i) Jatia Investment Co. Vs. CIT 206 ITR 718(Cal); ii) V. R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 407 ITR 145 (Mad); iii) ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Saffron Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. dated 28.08.2019; iv) ITAT, Kolkata bench in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Pansu Commercial Pvt. Ltd. dated 08.05.2019 and v) ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Sunglow Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. dat…

ITO, Ward- 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Dsr Impex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2087/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2087/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Baij Nath Singh, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68

…on Mills Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 (SC) wherein it has been held that no addition can be made without material and on mere suspicion." 8. The assessee rely of the case law, where in Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court Jatia Investment Co vs CIT [1994] 206 ITR 718 (Cal) had accepted the contention of the assessee and stated, In case there is no cash receipts, the question of cash credit does not arises. 9. The AR relied upon the Supreme Court Judgment in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (1995) Supp SCC 453 and in SumitiDayal Vs CIT (SC). During the course of deciding about the applicability of section 68, the Apex co…

ITO, Ward - 5(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bangabhumi Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2266/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…against the discharge of such debts only. The facts were duly disclosed and explained with documents to AD during the course of hearing. The AR in this regards placed his reliance in Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court case of Jatia Investment Co vs CIT [1994] 206 ITR 718 (Cal) wherein it had been accepted the contention of the assessee and stated that in case there is no cash receipts, the question of cash credit does not arises. The shares were allotted against the acquisition of investments under the agreements. The copies of these documents were also filed during the appellate proceedings. . The AO has placed…

Neelu Analjit Singh, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

ITA 2172/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Senior
Section 2Section 45

…reme Court 193 and decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas V CIT 1977 CTR 0647 (Guj). He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in Electra Jaipur Private Limited vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (1988) 26 ITD 236. Thus he submitted that the above evidence now sought to be adduced as an additional evidence by the appellant are relevant to issue under consideration and would assist coordinate bench in adjudicating on the issue in appeal as well as quantification of the gain and therefore they must be admitted. 17. During the course of hearing, it was felt by…

ITO, Ward - 13(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gouri Nandan Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 2102/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 80G

…T.A. No. 2102/Kol/2017 C.O. No. 120/Kol/2017 M/s. Gouri Nandan Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. not fall eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. We also find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Company- (Co.) vs. CIT reported in 206 ITR 718 (Cal) also supports the case of the assessee herein, wherein it was held as under: "It is finally emphasised by learned counsel for the assessee that the ultimate result is that the firm becomes a debtor to GB and Co. and the three non-financial companies of the group got discharged. Learned counsel also emphasised that, at the worst, it can be s…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Ramit Vohra, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4373/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

…d. Iii] It is submitted the sole purpose of judiciary as well as of the revenue is to get at the truth. There should be no objection to consider any evidence produced to test its authenticity relevant and then to act on it as held by I.T.A.T. Delhi-A Bench [26 ITD 236] in the case of Electra (Jaipur) Pirt. Ltd. V. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner “The sole purpose of judiciary as well as of the revenue is to get at the truth. If the truth is that the payment of commission was genuine and was dictated by the business needs, such a payment should not be disallowed merely on the ground that the assessee as to cr…

ITO, Ward-14(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Pansu Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1859/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1859/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ceived against the allotment of shares. As application of section 68 is not correct, hencethe A.O.’s action, therefore cannot be sustained. 9.We note that Jurisdictional, Hon`ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Jatia Investment Co. vs. CIT, reported in 206 ITR 718 wherein it was held where an assessee took over the liability of the non-financial companies to GB and Co. in exchange for the shares, in that situation section 68 cash credit does not attract. The detailed findings of the Hon`ble Court is given below: “We have perused the assessment order carefully. We find that cash did not pass at any stage th…

M/S. Access Global Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 13/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S. M Surana, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 144(1)Section 68

…N o . 1 3 / K o l / 2 0 1 8 M / s . A c c e s s G l o b a l L i m i t e d same would not fall eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. We also find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Company (Co.) vs. CIT reported in 206 ITR 718 (Cal) also supports the case of the assessee herein, wherein it was held as under: “It is finally emphasised by learned counsel for the assessee that the ultimate result is that the firm becomes a debtor to GB and Co. and the three non-financial companies of the group got discharged. Learned counsel also emphasised that, at the worst, it can be s…

M/S Abhijeet Enterprise Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 308/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 68

…money paid' . Hence if certain shares were donated by a person, then the same would not fall eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. We also find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Company- (Co.) vs. CIT reported in 206 ITR 718 (Cal) also supports the case of the assessee herein, wherein it was held as under: "It is finally emphasised by learned counsel for the assessee that the ultimate result is that the firm becomes a debtor to GB and Co. and the three non-financial companies of the group got discharged. Learned counsel also emphasised that, at the worst, it can be…

ITO, WD-5(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Vishwadham Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 I.T.O. Ward 5(4), Kolkata Vs M/S. Vishwadham Traders P.Ltd Pan:Aascv 8983D (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Department)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA (Before Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 I.T.O. Ward 5(4), Kolkata Vs M/s. Vishwadham Traders P.Ltd PAN:AASCV 8983D (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Department) Appellant by : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, ld.DR Respondent by : Shri Miraj D.Shah, ld.AR Date of Hearing : 18-12-2018 Date of Pronouncement:23-01 -2019 ORDER Per Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M.: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Kol…

ITO, Ward - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Aryvarat Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2203/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 131Section 68

…the share subscribers and the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order taking note of the decisions given by this Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Anupam Nandi in ITA No. 774/Kol/2012 and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Co. Vs. CIT 206 ITR 718 and other cases. We note that in this case, the shares subscribers have given shares in exchange of the shares of the assessee and no sum of money has been transferred to the assessee on this score. In similar case, the Tribunal in the case of Anand Enterprises Ltd. in ITA No.1614/Kol/2016 dated 26.09.2018 wherein in similar issue arose and the T…

ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Kaner Investments Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2095/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2095/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Kr. Singh, CITFor Respondent: S.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68

…money paid' . Hence if certain shares were donated by a person, then the same would not fall eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. We also find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Company- (Co.) vs. CIT reported in 206 ITR 718 (Cal) also supports the case of the assessee herein, wherein it was held as under: "It is finally emphasised by learned counsel for the assessee that the ultimate result is that the firm becomes a debtor to GB and Co. and the three non-financial companies of the group got discharged. Learned counsel also emphasised that, at the worst, it can be s…

Shri Rambadal Dhuman Yadav, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1846/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings”. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submits That As The Assessment Was Framed Ex-Parte, Due To Factors Beyond The Control Of The Assessee, It Was A Fit Case In Which The Additional Evidences Should Have Been Admitted By The I Ta N O. 1 8 4 6/ Ah D 2 01 4 R A Mb A D Al D H U Mu N Y A Da V Vs . I To Ass E Ss Me N T Y Ea R : 2 0 10 - 1 1 Page 2 Of 9

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…red by the learned CIT(A). In this regard, we may however refer to observations of Shri G. Krishnamurty, the then Hon’ble President and while articulating views on behalf of Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Electra (Jaipur) (P.) Ltd. v. IAC [1988] 26 ITD 236 (Del.), which are reproduced below : I TA N o. 1 8 4 6/ Ah d 2 01 4 R a mb a d al D h u mu n Y a da v Vs . I TO Ass e ss me n t Y ea r : 2 0 10 - 1 1 Page 7 of 9 "After going through the evidence placed before us, considering the facts of this and going through the orders of the authorities below, we are of the view that the assessee should not…

ITO, Ward-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Sunglow Dealcom Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2178/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Kolkata.……......……......………………..……….…….…............Appellant Vs. M/S. Sunglow Dealcom Private Limited……..........…………..……………….…...……..….…......Respondent 3Rd Floor 89, N.S. Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aadcs 7562 F]

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…ich has rightly been done by the Id. CIT(A) which does not require any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.” 4.2. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Co .v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1994] 206 ITR 718 (CAL.) held as follows:- “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credits – Assessment year 1976- 77 – Partners of assessee-firm were members of one ‘J’ group running several businesses and industries – Accounts of assessee-firm showed that it had borrowed certain amount from GB, a proprietary concern of one of its partners JM, which was i…

M/S. Aba Earthline Communication Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1141/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Aba Earthline Communications Ltd...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant Rajesh Mohan & Associates Unit No. 18 5Th Floor Bagati House 34, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan : Aabck 4264 E] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Kolkata.……......……….………………..………….…...........Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…f money paid' . Hence if certain shares were donated by a person, then the same would not fall eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. We also find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Company (Co.) vs. CIT reported in 206 ITR 718 (Cal) also supports the case of the assessee herein, wherein it was held as under: "It is finally emphasised by learned counsel for the assessee that the ultimate result is that the firm becomes a debtor to GB and Co. and the three non-financial companies of the group got discharged. Learned counsel also emphasised that, at the worst, it can be s…

ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Anand Enterprises Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1614/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1614/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Anand Enterprises Ltd. [Pan: Aacca 1175 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 56/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1614/Kol/2017 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Anand Enterprises Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 1175 F] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Ld. AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 2Section 68

…t fall eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. We also find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Company 5 ITA No.1614/Kol/2016 & C.O. No.56/Kol/2016 M/s Anand Enterprises Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 (Co.) vs. CIT reported in 206 ITR 718 (Cal) also supports the case of the assessee herein, wherein it was held as under: “It is finally emphasised by learned counsel for the assessee that the ultimate result is that the firm becomes a debtor to GB and Co. and the three non-financial companies of the group got discharged. Learned counsel also emphasised that, at the worst, it can be…

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 282/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M. Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -vs- M/s Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AAGCS 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising out of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -vs- ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [PAN: AAGCS 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For the Assessee : Md. Usman, CIT DR For the Department : Shri M. Kataruka, Advocate Date of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date of Pronounceme…