BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

301 results for “depreciation”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,770Mumbai1,464Bangalore640Chennai451Ahmedabad402Kolkata301Jaipur201Hyderabad194Pune174Karnataka157Raipur140Chandigarh112Surat103Indore88Cuttack88Amritsar87Cochin79Visakhapatnam66Lucknow59Telangana52Rajkot42Guwahati34Nagpur30SC23Jodhpur21Dehradun21Kerala20Agra17Allahabad17Calcutta14Ranchi13Panaji11Patna10Punjab & Haryana9Rajasthan5Jabalpur4Orissa4Varanasi3Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)100Section 26361Disallowance43Depreciation43Section 14A42Addition to Income37Deduction36Section 25029Section 115J25Section 43B

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; then the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be examined as to whether the actions

Showing 1–20 of 301 · Page 1 of 16

...
19
Section 4016
Section 27415

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; then the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be examined as to whether the actions

M/S. SPAN FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; then the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be examined as to whether the actions

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

natural justice as canvassed by the Id AR". 2.4. The facts of the instant case are identical to the assessee's case under appeal. In this case also, the assessee was given opportunity on three occasions viz; 07.11.2012, 02.04.2013 & 10.04.2013 but the assessee neither attended the penalty proceedings on the first two dates nor was any written submissions explanations submitted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 836/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.................................................Appellant Vs. M/S. Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd….......……….............................…………………........Respondent 27, Brabourne Road Room No. 311 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aahcs 1241 F] C.O. No. 33/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd….......……….............................………………….............Appellant 27, Brabourne Road Room No. 311 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aahcs 1241 F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.............................................Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.................................................Appellant Vs. M/S. Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd….......……….............................…………………........Respondent 27, Brabourne Road Room No. 311 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aahcs 1241 F]

Section 144Section 250

justice and merit.” 11. The assessment orders, The assessment orders, apparently, show arbitrariness and lack of judicious show arbitrariness and lack of judicious approach by the Assessing Officer. W by the Assessing Officer. When the ld. CIT(A) has called for a remand report, has called for a remand report, the Assessing Officer was provided sufficient opportunity to substantiate

DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 131/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.................................................Appellant Vs. M/S. Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd….......……….............................…………………........Respondent 27, Brabourne Road Room No. 311 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aahcs 1241 F] C.O. No. 33/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd….......……….............................………………….............Appellant 27, Brabourne Road Room No. 311 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aahcs 1241 F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.............................................Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.................................................Appellant Vs. M/S. Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd….......……….............................…………………........Respondent 27, Brabourne Road Room No. 311 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aahcs 1241 F]

Section 144Section 250

justice and merit.” 11. The assessment orders, The assessment orders, apparently, show arbitrariness and lack of judicious show arbitrariness and lack of judicious approach by the Assessing Officer. W by the Assessing Officer. When the ld. CIT(A) has called for a remand report, has called for a remand report, the Assessing Officer was provided sufficient opportunity to substantiate

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 71

depreciable” assets in the return of income, and the assessee has claimed Rs.32,12,50,000/- as capital loss and had set it off with its ‘other heads of income’. According to the AO, as per sub-section (3) of section 71 of the Act, when the net result of the computation under the head ‘Capital Gain’ is a loss

MANOJ KUMAR CHOWDHURY ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 61(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2420/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Manoj Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Ito, Ward-61(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

SHYAM SUNDAR HAZRA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 33(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2510/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shyam Sundar Hazra Vs. Ito, Ward-33(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

SHREE BALAJI PLYWOOD,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1520/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shree Balaji Plywood Vs. Ito, Ward-48(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai on behalf of Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

NATHMAL SARAF CHARITY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1)(EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2120/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Harshbardhan Bhardwaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

BINAGURI TEA CO. PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2160/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Puja Somani, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

SRI BABLU SUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 223/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation disallowed of Rs.36,670/-, bogus sundry creditors of Rs.1,36,795/-, other source of Rs.15,056/- and Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.6,95,551/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Subsequently, the assessee was served notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 31.12.2007. Thereafter considering the assessee’s submission, the AO imposed penalty

ACIT,CC-IV,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INLAND WORLD LOGISTIC PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2364/KOL/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 30Section 37(1)

justice, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication as per law. Once the genuineness of the expenses gets established, then the same can be treated as capital in nature and the depreciation

INLAND WORLD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY M/S INLAND ROAD TRANSPORT PVT.LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - IV,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2320/KOL/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 30Section 37(1)

justice, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication as per law. Once the genuineness of the expenses gets established, then the same can be treated as capital in nature and the depreciation

M/S MAA ENGINEERING,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 243/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

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

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation claimed by the assessee and added back the same to the total income of the assessee. Thereafter penalty proceedings were initiated and notice u/s. 271(1)(c)/274 of the 2 Maa Engineering, AY- 2010-11 Act dated 11.03.2013 was issued and served on the assessee and imposed penalty of Rs. 12,96,181/- as there was loss

M/S AKANKSHA VINIYOG LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD -1(4), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1555/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation and insurance expenses to the total income of the assessee. In respect of the addition made in the course of assessment proceedings the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty on the assessee holding that the assessee concealed its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 5. On appeal by the assessee

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 306/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

justice and fair play we restore the issue back to the file of AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 22. Next inter-connected issue in ground No.6 to 8 in assessee appeal

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

natural justice as no justice can be said to have been dispensed with, if the reasons for Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 the decisions reached are not mentioned and apparent in the order passed. Fur- ther, it is only a speaking order that can indicate whether the decision maker has acted

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

natural justice as no justice can be said to have been dispensed with, if the reasons for Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 the decisions reached are not mentioned and apparent in the order passed. Fur- ther, it is only a speaking order that can indicate whether the decision maker has acted