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.

69 results for “reassessment”+ Section 234B(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi674Mumbai611Bangalore302Ahmedabad112Jaipur95Hyderabad83Chennai82Kolkata69Pune49Agra29Rajkot28Indore26Surat23Cochin22Nagpur21Dehradun19Lucknow19Chandigarh18Visakhapatnam16Patna14Amritsar14Allahabad10Cuttack8Ranchi7Karnataka7Guwahati5Jodhpur4SC3Raipur3Telangana2Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)78Section 14849Addition to Income47Section 26344Section 14740Section 115J32Section 244A30Section 234B29Section 15428Reassessment

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2016/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

234B amounting to Rs. 1,72,773 is liable to be summarily rejected. 4. Impugned levying interest under section 234C amounting to Rs. 32,317. The Learned Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, has passed the order under section 154 in ignoring the foreign tax credit amounting to Rs 6,39,970 resulting into a tax on unjustified denial

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4

17
Deduction17
Disallowance15

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 371/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 781/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

M/S. PEARL TRACOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1201/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 3(1) C/O M/S Salarpuriajajodia& Co.7, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Chworinghee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700072, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9934G Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

234B is consequential and hence the AO may kindly be directed to delete the same 14. For that your petitioner craves the right to put additional grounds and/or to alter/ amend modify the present grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The issue raised in ground nos.1 to 3 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the reassessment

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

ITA 828/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.826,827&828/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Nayak, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate & Shri D. Mitra, Advocate

reassessment order passed by the AO under section 147/143(3) of the Act. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that just because ld CIT(A) deleted the entire addition made by assessing officer, does not mean that order passed by the ld Assessing officer under section 147/143(3) becomes null

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

ITA 827/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.826,827&828/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Nayak, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate & Shri D. Mitra, Advocate

reassessment order passed by the AO under section 147/143(3) of the Act. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that just because ld CIT(A) deleted the entire addition made by assessing officer, does not mean that order passed by the ld Assessing officer under section 147/143(3) becomes null

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

ITA 826/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.826,827&828/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Nayak, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate & Shri D. Mitra, Advocate

reassessment order passed by the AO under section 147/143(3) of the Act. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that just because ld CIT(A) deleted the entire addition made by assessing officer, does not mean that order passed by the ld Assessing officer under section 147/143(3) becomes null

GOBINDA ADHIKARY,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. WARD 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

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

ITA 2802/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69Section 69A

234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is excessive, incorrectly calculated, and/or bad in law. Ground No. 5: Leave to Produce Additional Evidence (Rule 29) That the Appellant craves leave to produce additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Ground No. 6: Leave to Press, Modify, or Raise

SUKDEV SEN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR. 61, KOLKATA

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

ITA 78/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90Section 90(2)

234B and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the said ground by holding that the ground is general and consequential in nature. 7. That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in levying/charging excess interest of Rs. 18,628/- u/s. 234C and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the said ground

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

For Appellant: Shri C.S Agarwal, Sr. Adv., K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Bikash KumarFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 28Section 44A

reassessment order was passed with variation, modification, altercation of the recorded reasons which is impermissible under the law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,12,50,000 treating the non-refundable grant received by the Assessee from PricewaterhouseCoopers Services BV, Netherlands ('Services

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

4(d) of the affidavit-in-opposition, by one Madan Mohan Lal, filed on behalf of the respondents. From the facts it is apparent that the Additional Commissioner did not exercise his discretion and judgment. In 24 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 the aforesaid view

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

4(d) of the affidavit-in-opposition, by one Madan Mohan Lal, filed on behalf of the respondents. From the facts it is apparent that the Additional Commissioner did not exercise his discretion and judgment. In 24 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 the aforesaid view

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

4(d) of the affidavit-in-opposition, by one Madan Mohan Lal, filed on behalf of the respondents. From the facts it is apparent that the Additional Commissioner did not exercise his discretion and judgment. In 24 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 the aforesaid view

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1797/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

234B of rs.6,72,710/-, and interest u/s 234C of Rs.395/-, aggregating to Rs.16,92,236/-, which had been discharged in part by way of TDS of rs.2,86,782/-, self assessment tax u/s 140A of Rs.7,19,454/- and regular tax of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs.54,374/- paid on 22-07-2008. The appellant is still

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1494/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

234B of rs.6,72,710/-, and interest u/s 234C of Rs.395/-, aggregating to Rs.16,92,236/-, which had been discharged in part by way of TDS of rs.2,86,782/-, self assessment tax u/s 140A of Rs.7,19,454/- and regular tax of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs.54,374/- paid on 22-07-2008. The appellant is still

M/S.LIFELINE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2019/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 263Section 264Section 68

reassessment on 27.03.2015 treating the assessee’s share balance/ premium in issue of Rs. 14,51,00,000/- to be unexplained cash credits. 6. The assessee preferred appeal challenging correctness of the said Section 68 addition. We find that its authorized representative filed a letter dated 10.08.216 through post seeking to withdraw appeal on the ground that the taxpayer wanted

M/S. SWIFT TRACOM PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2014/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 263Section 264Section 68

reassessment on 27.03.2015 treating the assessee’s share balance/ premium in issue of Rs. 14,51,00,000/- to be unexplained cash credits. 6. The assessee preferred appeal challenging correctness of the said Section 68 addition. We find that its authorized representative filed a letter dated 10.08.216 through post seeking to withdraw appeal on the ground that the taxpayer wanted

M/S. PRABHAKAR VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2018/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 263Section 264Section 68

reassessment on 27.03.2015 treating the assessee’s share balance/ premium in issue of Rs. 14,51,00,000/- to be unexplained cash credits. 6. The assessee preferred appeal challenging correctness of the said Section 68 addition. We find that its authorized representative filed a letter dated 10.08.216 through post seeking to withdraw appeal on the ground that the taxpayer wanted

M/S. SIMPLEX COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2016/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 263Section 264Section 68

reassessment on 27.03.2015 treating the assessee’s share balance/ premium in issue of Rs. 14,51,00,000/- to be unexplained cash credits. 6. The assessee preferred appeal challenging correctness of the said Section 68 addition. We find that its authorized representative filed a letter dated 10.08.216 through post seeking to withdraw appeal on the ground that the taxpayer wanted