Browse Tax Judgements
Showing 201–220 of 245 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.
Chimey Yangzom Athuptsang Vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee, Chimey Yangzom Athuptsang, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 15.07.2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that t…
Chhaya Prakashani Ltd. Vs. ITO(TDS), Ward 1(2)
A survey action under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the office premises of Chhaya Prakashani Ltd. During the survey, it was noticed that M/s Publishing Services Pvt. Ltd. was paid ₹39,42,543/- as composing charges. The…
Aryan Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
The assessee, Aryan Promoters Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income on 28.09.2012, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued various notices and summons to the assessee, which were not complied with. Consequently, t…
Anjani Agarwal Vs. PCIT (Central) Kolkata
The assessee, Anjani Agarwal, purchased 1,95,500 equity shares of M/s Ankit Polyfabs Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of ₹1,86,76,115/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessi…
Agarwal Maheswari & CO vs ITO Ward-22(2), Kolkata
The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the ld. Add/JCIT(A), Ranchi, dated 13.06.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The appellant submitted that the intimation issued under section 143(1) …
Adhira Vincom Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward (10)1, Kolkata
The assessee, Adhira Vincom Private Limited, filed its return of income on 29.09.2012, declaring total income at ₹nil. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) due to a large share premium receive…
Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Kolkata Vs. Anushreya Investment Private Limited
The assessee, Anushreya Investment Private Limited, filed its return of income on 16-9-2011 declaring an income of Rs. 1,49,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under Section 147 of the Act, and a notice was issued on 27-3-2018. The As…
Viewmore Enclave Pvt. ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 9(1)
The assessee, Viewmore Enclave Pvt. ltd., filed its return of income on 29.03.2013, declaring total income at ₹nil. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for large share premium. The assessee provided details of investors who subs…
St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church Vs. CIT (Exemption)
St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church, a trust registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata, dated 11.09.2023, which rejected their applicati…
Singh Construction Corporation Vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2
The case of the assessee, Singh Construction Corporation, was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of genuineness of expenses (large payment made u/s 194C) to persons who had not filed the return of income. The assessee submitted …
Riddhiman Realcon LLP Vs. ITO, Ward 9(3)
The assessee, Riddhiman Realcon LLP, filed the return of income on 24.01.2013, declaring a total loss of ₹221/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued o…
Rameshwar Finvest Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3
The case pertains to an appeal by Rameshwar Finvest Private Limited against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata, dated 06.08.2025, for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee challenged the assessment framed und…
Rabiul Islam Gain Vs. ITO, Ward 49(1) and Tapan Kumar Pal Vs. DCIT, Circle 49(1)
The assessee Rabiul Islam Gain filed his return of income on 18.03.2014, declaring a total income of ₹8,98,140/-. The case was reopened for reassessment on 13.03.2015 after the AO received information about cash deposits into the assessee's…
Prompt Commodities Limited Vs. ITO, Ward 12(1)
The assessee, Prompt Commodities Limited, filed its return of income on 27.09.2015, declaring a total income of ₹7,04,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large value commodity exchange transactions, low net profit from share br…
Padmakshi Chakraborty Vs ITO Ward-25(1), Kolkata
The assessee, Padmakshi Chakraborty, purchased a property during the financial year 2019-2020 for Rs.32 lakhs, with a market value of Rs.46,89,600/- and paid stamp duty of Rs.3,60,307/-. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Act af…
M/s Urban Nirmal LLP Vs. ITO, Ward 12(1)
The assessee, M/s Urban Nirmal LLP, filed the original return of income on 29.09.2013, declaring a total income of ₹20,56,820/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22.03.2016, assessing …
International Seaport (Haldia) Private Limited Vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata
This appeal pertains to the assessment year 2018-2019. The assessee, International Seaport (Haldia) Private Limited, imported an expensive Slewing Ring Roller Bearing from Germany as a spare part for its Stacker-Reclaimer Machine. Due to th…
Indian City Properties Limited Vs Pr.CIT, Kolkata-2
The assessee, Indian City Properties Limited, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2020-2021 declaring a total income of Rs.23,35,26,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was framed under sections 143(3…
Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Kolkata vs. Sanmukh Vincom Private Limited
The assessee, Sanmukh Vincom Private Limited, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring a total income of ₹28,60,680/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the investigation wing indicating that t…
ITO, Ward-32(1), Kolkata Vs Satish Singh
The assessee, an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs. 16,36,550/- on 11/06/2019. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.10.2019. Subsequently, the return was selected for …