Browse Tax Judgements
Showing 1–20 of 25 judgements · Browse by section & bench
Free to read — no signup required. Every judgement includes the facts, legal issues, outcome and related cases. Create a free account for AI chat, drafting and workspaces.
Late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Bothra Vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), Kolkata
This is an appeal filed by the assessee, Late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Bothra, against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi, passed on 23.11.2023 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2…
DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata Vs. Prabhu Poly Pipes Ltd.
This appeal was preferred by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-26, Kolkata dated 22.05.2024 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The CBDT issued Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, increasing the monetary li…
ITA No. 223/KOL/2024 & C.O. No. 7/Kol/2025
The appeal by the revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The tax effect on the disputed additions before the Trib…
Mr. Shourav Sen vs. I.T.O., Ward 61(3), Kolkata
The assessee, Mr. Shourav Sen, filed his Return of Income (ROI) in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,24,73,100/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (…
Ellenbarie Steels And Allied Industries Ltd. (merged with Kamrup Enterprises Ltd.) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Kolkata
The case involves an appeal filed by Ellenbarie Steels And Allied Industries Ltd., which merged with Kamrup Enterprises Ltd. effective from 01.04.2016 as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta. The Income Tax Officer issued a n…
Sayonara Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata
This is an appeal filed by Sayonara Commerce Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed on 24.11.2021 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for …
Adhyam Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Ward-9(1), NFAC
This is an appeal filed by Adhyam Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year…
The Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Kolkata.
This is an appeal filed by The Empire Jute Co. Ltd. against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Ye…
Meera Sonthalia vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Asansol
The case pertains to the assessment year 2014-15 where the assessee, Meera Sonthalia, sold an immovable property for Rs. 29,40,000. The assessee submitted a valuation report determining the fair market value and computed a loss of Rs. 2,80,…
DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited
The assessee company, Jupiter International Limited, was established on 08.09.1978 and is engaged in the trading of computer peripherals and parts and manufacturing of CDR and DVDR. The company filed its original return of income for the as…
Shree Riddhi Siddhi Wines Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Ward-13(4), Kolkata
This is an appeal filed by Shree Riddhi Siddhi Wines Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Kolkata-5/10489/2016-17 dated 10.07.2023. The appeal was …
ITA No.474/Kol/2025
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT(A)] in appeal no. NFAC/2013-14/10279745 dated 23.12.2024 for assessment year 2014-15. Smt. Madhumita Da…
DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/s Dhunseri Ventures Ltd
For the assessment year 2014-15, M/s Dhunseri Ventures Ltd filed its return of income. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer observed certain investments and income receipts. The Assessing Officer made disallowances …
M/s Excella Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), TDS, Kolkata
The assessee, M/s Excella Realtors Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the business of construction and land development. A demand notice was issued by the TDS-CPC, Kolkata, raising a total demand of ₹4,59,653. After giving credit for certain adjustme…
Kajal Kumari Seth vs. ITO, Ward-45(2), Kolkata
The assessee, Kajal Kumari Seth, filed an Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring a total income of Rs.2,41,700/-. Her case was selected for scrutiny under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Assessing Officer found unac…
DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Bandhan Financial Services Ltd
The assessee, Bandhan Financial Services Ltd, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), filed its original return of income declaring a total income of Rs.422,02,20,590/- for the assessment year 2014-15. The case was selected for scrutiny, an…
Vishal Osatwal vs. DCIT, Circle-29(1), Kolkata
The assessee, Vishal Osatwal, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring a total income of Rs.17,62,746/-. His case was selected for scrutiny, and during the assessment proceedings, he filed a revised computation o…
Karnimata Cold Storage Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-38, Midnapur
The assessee-company, Karnimata Cold Storage Ltd., is engaged in the business of cold storage. For the assessment year 2014-15, the company filed its return of income declaring a total loss of Rs.3,31,35,426/-. The Assessing Officer receive…
ITA No.1618/Kol/2025
This appeal was filed by the revenue against the order dated 12.06.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014–15. During the hearing, the learned …
DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Rural Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order dated 20.02.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi. The Revenue sought condonation for an 83-day delay in filing the appeal, which was granted by the Tribunal. During the hearing, the Revenue argued th…