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.

9 results for “section 68”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai54Delhi27Kolkata9Bangalore7Raipur6Surat5Jaipur3Pune3Chennai2Hyderabad2Rajkot2Ahmedabad2SC1Chandigarh1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)9Section 55A7Deduction5Depreciation4Section 543Long Term Capital Gains3Section 14A2Section 2(14)2Addition to Income2

ITO, WD-30(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TOLARAM AND SONS (HUF), KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is party allowed

ITA 974/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 974/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward-30(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Tolaram & Sons (Huf) [Pan: Aaaht 7363 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.P.Nag, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 55A

68,344/- as against Rs. 1,65,222/- reported by the assessee. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that Section 55A

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)

55A and it was without jurisdiction – Held, yes Taking the consistent view of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umedbhai International P.Ltd. (supra) we reverse the orders of lower authorities and allow assessee’s ground. 22. The fifth issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the expenses under section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2613/KOL/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)

55A and it was without jurisdiction – Held, yes Taking the consistent view of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umedbhai International P.Ltd. (supra) we reverse the orders of lower authorities and allow assessee’s ground. 22. The fifth issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the expenses under section

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 852/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)

55A and it was without jurisdiction – Held, yes Taking the consistent view of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umedbhai International P.Ltd. (supra) we reverse the orders of lower authorities and allow assessee’s ground. 22. The fifth issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the expenses under section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1019/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)

55A and it was without jurisdiction – Held, yes Taking the consistent view of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umedbhai International P.Ltd. (supra) we reverse the orders of lower authorities and allow assessee’s ground. 22. The fifth issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the expenses under section

SHRI AMITABHA CHAUDHURI,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR (WEST BENTAL), DURGAPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2041/KOL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2041/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02) Shri Amitabha Chaudhuri Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur 2D-401, “Avishikta 1”, 369/1, Purbachal Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdpc1857E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 01/01/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

55A(a) & 55(2)(b)(ii) – held as acceptable by Hon. ITAT, Kolkata. Table # 2 Comparison of commercial parameters of Eastern Tea Estates (P) Ltd. on the basis of Audited B/S of the Company for FY'81- '82, FY'97 -98 and FY'98 -'99 on record, including figures stated for "previous years" Financial Saleable Sale Proceeds Secured Secured Loan

ITO, WARD-31(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. NAMITA CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1595/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Aloke Kumar Ghosh
Section 2Section 53ASection 54Section 55A

section 55A of the Act. The DVO in his valuation report gave the following as the value of the property which the assessee was to receive : “i) Cost of half share of land measuring 5 cottah 10 chattak 30 sq. ft. as on 23/12/1997 is ½ x Rs.3,46,018/- i.e. Rs.1,73,009/-. Indexed cost of half share

MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WD-2(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1162/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Late Mahendra Kr. Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Siliguri (L/H Of Susmita Agarwal) R.C. Building , Sevoke Road Siliguri-734001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afipa 9472 M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Tauheed, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 55A

68,094/- after invoking section 50C of the Act. Other aspects of the issue i.e. nature of capital asset, its location as well as its transfer in the relevant previous year are not question. We proceed in view of this admitted factual background to find that the CIT(A) has affirmed the AO’s action vide following discussion

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE DIAMOND COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 326/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)

Section, we find that said Act does not make any distinction between the income under the head “capital gain” on which STT was paid or STT was not paid. We further find that loss under the same head then set off from one source to another source is allowed if it is computed under the similar computation made