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.

24 results for “section 68”+ Section 246A(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Indore163Delhi114Chennai55Mumbai44Jaipur32Kolkata24Chandigarh24Hyderabad19Bangalore13Pune9Panaji7Jodhpur7Raipur6Ahmedabad6Rajkot5Calcutta4SC3Lucknow3Patna2Karnataka2Nagpur2Allahabad2Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1Guwahati1Jabalpur1Surat1Telangana1Uttarakhand1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 25026Section 15426Section 143(3)18Addition to Income17Section 14715Section 14815Section 6813Section 92C12Section 271A9Unexplained Cash Credit

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ERSTWHILE PHILIPS SOFTWARE CENTRE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T. (TRANSFER PRICING) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/KOL/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 154

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

6
Undisclosed Income5
Penalty5
Section 246A
Section 250
Section 92C

246A of the Act, order u/s 92CA or its rectification order u/s 154 of the Act passed by the TPO is 2 I.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Philips India Limited not an appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he accordingly dismissed both the appeals being non-maintainable. 3. Being aggrieved by the said orders

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ERSTWHILE PHILIPS SOFTWARE CENTRE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T.(TRANSFER PRICING) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/KOL/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 92C

246A of the Act, order u/s 92CA or its rectification order u/s 154 of the Act passed by the TPO is 2 I.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Philips India Limited not an appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he accordingly dismissed both the appeals being non-maintainable. 3. Being aggrieved by the said orders

MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250

68,525/- on account of Disputed Interest u/s 234A c. Rs 13,34,79,675/-on account of Disputed Interest u/s 234B d. Rs. 3,04,32,052/-on account of Disputed Interest u/s 234C” 3. Although the assessee has taken 20 grounds of appeal, however, the main grievance of the assessee is that the addition made in the intimation

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2334/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2333/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2332/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 246ASection 3Section 69A

246A. 2 iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashis Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 dealing with notices u/s.148 Issued between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 which was followed by the AO by treating notice u/s.148 issued in un-amended provisions

TERAI FRUITS COMPANY,SILIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2099/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 285B

246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.” 4.1. Since the required Form No. 68

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

1. THAT I am a Citizen of India, having PAN: ACSPR7183B. 2. THAT I am a permanent resident of at 68, Sonali Apartment, 8/2A, Alipur Park Road, Kolkata 700027, West Bengal, India. 3. THAT I am a Director of TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, having PAN:AACCT5883D and CIN:U72900WB2006PTC112124, having its Registered Office at BIPLBuilding-C.Block-EP&GP, Sector-V,Salt

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

1. THAT I am a Citizen of India, having PAN: ACSPR7183B. 2. THAT I am a permanent resident of at 68, Sonali Apartment, 8/2A, Alipur Park Road, Kolkata 700027, West Bengal, India. 3. THAT I am a Director of TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, having PAN:AACCT5883D and CIN:U72900WB2006PTC112124, having its Registered Office at BIPLBuilding-C.Block-EP&GP, Sector-V,Salt

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

1. THAT I am a Citizen of India, having PAN: ACSPR7183B. 2. THAT I am a permanent resident of at 68, Sonali Apartment, 8/2A, Alipur Park Road, Kolkata 700027, West Bengal, India. 3. THAT I am a Director of TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, having PAN:AACCT5883D and CIN:U72900WB2006PTC112124, having its Registered Office at BIPLBuilding-C.Block-EP&GP, Sector-V,Salt

M/S. POSITIVE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2492/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. George Mathan & Sh. Rakesh Mishra

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

68 of the Act at ₹ 1,62,90,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated I.T.A. No.: 2492/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Positive Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 03.05.2024 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

1) Sahayta Financial Consultancy Serive (ii) Brijdham Dealcom (P) Ltd. still exist as share holders but no response could be evoked from them also. However, the assessee is unable to explain anything in this regard. 2.9. Further, it is imperative to discuss the balance sheet of the assessee company as well as facts and circumstances in respect of share capital

NISHTHA VINCOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1160/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

68 of the Act besides, relying upon other judicial I.T.A. No.: 1160/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nishtha Vincom Pvt. Ltd. pronouncements for disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by giving its finding as extracted under: “3. Findings and Decision of the Appellate Authority- 3.1 The appellant has preferred this appeal against

SUDHIR JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 644/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh and Shri Anuj Musaddi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha &
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

68 of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,19,750/-being unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

TEJAS TRANSCOM (P) LTD.,BURDWAN WEST vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1387/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 69,17,000/-, and Ground No. 8 related to the addition of Rs. 10,23,120/- on account of unverified sundry creditors. No statement of facts has been filed along with the appeal memo. However, the same as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) has been culled out from Form

ADIDARSHAN TRADEWING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1716/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 263Section 68

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 towards additions made for share capital of Rs. 48,470/- and share premium of Rs. 4,84,21,530/- which is without proper basis, reason or justification. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the actions of the Ld. Assessing Officer in charging interest

PROVASH ADHIKARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

68. 7. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee as mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: “The assessee filed his return showing a total income of Rs.2,43,444/-. The matter

OPLUS STEEL AND POWER PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWATI CONCAST AND POWER PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2550/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

68 of the Act while a sum of Rs. 4,84,000/- being 2% of the accommodation entry was added u/s 69C of the Act and the total income was assessed at Rs. 2,25,13,079/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

DIAMOND TRADECOM PRIVATE LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1389/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty 271(1)(b) of the act. I.T.A. No.: 1389/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Diamond Tradecom Private Ltd. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty 271(1)(c) of the act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend