Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

75 ITR 301High Court1970#6420 most cited

What is Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

A document is not admissible as evidence if it is obtained through a violation of law. The Tribunal cannot consider evidence that was not legally obtained.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants · violation of law · inadmissible evidence · illegally obtained evidence · natural justice · assessment procedure

Judgments citing Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…Badridas Daga vs. CIT – (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) - CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited – (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) - ITO vs. M.V. Mathew – (1994) 72 Taxman 89 (Cochin) (Mag) - Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd) - Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs CIT – 27 ITR 700 (Bom) 34. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 35. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. T…

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…Badridas Daga vs. CIT – (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) - CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited – (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) - ITO vs. M.V. Mathew – (1994) 72 Taxman 89 (Cochin) (Mag) - Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd) - Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs CIT – 27 ITR 700 (Bom) 34. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 35. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. T…

M/S. FORETELL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the alternate claim

ITA 2217/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 37o

…Projects Pvt Ltd. ITA No.346/De1/2015 dated 20.04.2018.  Shriram EPC Ltd v. DCIT 1.T.A. Nos.1604 & 1740/CHNY/2016 dated 08.01.2020  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd [1962] 46 1TR 649 (SC)  TRF Ltd v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC)  Devi Films Private Ltd v. C1T, 75 ITR 301 (Mad)  CIT v. ITC Ltd [2015] 63 taxmann.com 176 (Calcutta) 5. On the contrary, the Ld.Sr.DR relied on the orders passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 6. From the documents placed in the paper book at page 179 onwards, we note that assessee proceeded under section…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2014/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ing the course of business of the assessee. Since the amount had become irrecoverable the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2013/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ing the course of business of the assessee. Since the amount had become irrecoverable the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2012/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ing the course of business of the assessee. Since the amount had become irrecoverable the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2011/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ing the course of business of the assessee. Since the amount had become irrecoverable the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld…

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1740/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ing the course of business of the assessee. Since the amount had become irrecoverable the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld…

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1604/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ing the course of business of the assessee. Since the amount had become irrecoverable the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.…

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.…

J. THOMAS & CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2071/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2066 /Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata -Vs- M/S J.Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd.. [Pan: Aabcj 2851 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2071/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S J.Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcj 2851 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Anup Sinha, ACA
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…by passing necessary resolutions The assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Mysore Sugar Company Limited [46 ITR 649(SC)] and by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Limited -vs.- CIT [75 ITR 301 (Mad.). Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Abdullabhai Abdulkadar reported in 41 ITR 545. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in case of DCIT -vs.- ITC Limited in ITA No. 157/KOL/1996, order dated 30.04.2001. The Id. CIT(Appeals) agreed with the conte…

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. THOMAS & CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2066/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2066 /Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata -Vs- M/S J.Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd.. [Pan: Aabcj 2851 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2071/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S J.Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcj 2851 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Anup Sinha, ACA
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…by passing necessary resolutions The assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Mysore Sugar Company Limited [46 ITR 649(SC)] and by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Limited -vs.- CIT [75 ITR 301 (Mad.). Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Abdullabhai Abdulkadar reported in 41 ITR 545. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in case of DCIT -vs.- ITC Limited in ITA No. 157/KOL/1996, order dated 30.04.2001. The Id. CIT(Appeals) agreed with the conte…

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J. THOMAS & CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 275/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)

…I.T.A. No. 275/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 275/KOL/ 2014 Assessment year : 2009-2010 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,................……….............….…Appellant Crcle-4, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 7 th Floor, Kolkata-700 069 -Vs.- M/s. J. Thomas & Co. Pvt. Limited,..............................................Respondent C/o. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-700 072 [PAN: AABCJ 28…

Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (75 ITR 301) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax