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.

7 results for “reassessment”+ Section 194Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai46Mumbai42Delhi24Bangalore19Jaipur9Kolkata7Patna6Jodhpur2Allahabad2Hyderabad2Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1Cuttack1Lucknow1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 10A13Section 143(3)9Deduction7Section 2636Section 1976Section 404Section 234C4Section 1473Section 2502Disallowance

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 2082/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

194J of the Act. As we have already seen, the Assessee made payments to persons resident in India under the Act who acted as sub-consultants. The amounts paid to the sub-consultants were claimed as deduction/expenditure in arriving at the income declared in the return of income. According to the AO, the payments made to sub-consultants were

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

2
TDS2
Revision u/s 2632

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 1489/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

194J of the Act. As we have already seen, the Assessee made payments to persons resident in India under the Act who acted as sub-consultants. The amounts paid to the sub-consultants were claimed as deduction/expenditure in arriving at the income declared in the return of income. According to the AO, the payments made to sub-consultants were

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

194J against Management fee paid to McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited during the FY-2008-09, (ii) Non-deduction of TDS against Royalty during the FY-2008-09. 3.1 Subsequently the revision order was passed on 26.03.2014 by the Ld. CIT-1, Kolkata and the assessment was set aside on the above two limited issues with a direction

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

194J against Management fee paid to McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited during the FY-2008-09, (ii) Non-deduction of TDS against Royalty during the FY-2008-09. 3.1 Subsequently the revision order was passed on 26.03.2014 by the Ld. CIT-1, Kolkata and the assessment was set aside on the above two limited issues with a direction

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1613/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Banibrata Dutta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 70(1)Section 72

194J Rs.5,45,692/- (ii) u/s 37(1) on account of inadmissible donation Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 5,66,522/- Total Income from Business Rs.3,63,56,869/- Less: Brought forward business loss set off Rs.43,91,870/- Less: Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation Set off Rs.2,47,02,614/- Less: Brought forward depreciation set off To the tune of remaining

M/S ANUBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is allowed

ITA 941/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 263

reassessment order dated 02.11.2018 which was framed while giving effect to the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT which is found placed at pages 65 to 73 of the Paper Book. According to the Ld. AR, a perusal of the same would reveal that the AO after enquiry has not drawn any adverse inference against the purported introduction

M/S. ANUBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA - 5, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is allowed

ITA 1368/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 263

reassessment order dated 02.11.2018 which was framed while giving effect to the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT which is found placed at pages 65 to 73 of the Paper Book. According to the Ld. AR, a perusal of the same would reveal that the AO after enquiry has not drawn any adverse inference against the purported introduction