EIH LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the order passed by the Learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

112 dated 18.10.1984 3.4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book and case laws relied upon by both the sides. We find that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act , the subject matter as to whether the aircraft has been used for business purpose and expenses

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

TDS Return-Rent (Section 194) On various dates Rs.70,00,000/- 2. Deposited cash of Rs. 10,00,000 or On various dates Rs.14,04,700/- more in a saving bank account 3. Deposit in Cash aggregating On various dates Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.2,00,00/- or more, with a Banking company 4. Purchase of immovable property On various dates

DDIT(IT)-1(1)KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S JOY PARTNERSHIP, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 149/Kol/2009 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ddit(It)-1(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Joy Partnership [Pan: Aadfj 6427 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

112 On account of TDS 41,30,719 9 M/s Joy Partnership A.Yr.2005-06 Stores and Spares consumed (Anju Hardware, Mahamaya Trading Agency, Gulati Trading Co., Mine –O-Craft) 14,73,639 Consummables (Agarwal Hardware, Saluja & Brothers, Mine-O-Craft, Jeet Engineering Works) 49,183 Payroll Cost (including Roofbolting labour charges – Kalinga Mining & Civil Construction Pvt Ltd & Indian Payroll

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

112 ITD 79 (Del), cited by the Revenue is again distinguishable on facts. There, the assessee an Indian Company was a wholly owned subsidiary of VOAMC, a foreign company. The Indian Company was to execute a dredging contract at certain port in Gujarat. As it did not have the technical competence and infrastructure to execute the aforesaid contract, the VOAMC

SANDERSONS & MORGANS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2004-05 (Appellant ) (Respondent) Sandersans & Morgans -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-54, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Abbfs 4291 B) For The Appellant : Shri J.P.Khaitan & Shri S.Basu, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri D.Banerjee, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2015 Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 85/Cit(A)-Xxxvii/Acit-54/08-09. Dated 18.03.2009 For The Asst Year 2004-05 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

TDS made thereon to the account of central government from the side of the deductor. He further placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- Escorts Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2007) 15 SOT 368 (Delhi ITAT) 3 Sandersans & Morgans A.Yr.2004-05 Alipurduar Tea Co. Ltd vs Agricultural ITO reported in 112

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

TDS has been made by the assessee. Therefore, all the above mentioned amounts were required to have been added to total income u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act if no tax was deducted from payment to contractors/sub-contractors u/s 194C, the expenditure was not deductible from the earnings

AC CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

112 10.57.050.00 Total Credit card sale 70,90,580.00 Total bank Credit Card Received 70.23.726.86 The said amount relates to sales proceeding through credit card to different customers and the above amount relate to sale, therefore, no TDS is liable to be deducted against such credit card sales. In the audited balance sheet there is no expenses has been shown

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

TDS of 274,795/- was duly deducted under Section 194A of the Act. (Page-90) During the course of the assessment proceedings, notice/s 142(1) issued seeking details of unsecured loan raised during the financial year 2010-11, indicating the name(s), complete postal address and PAN(s) of the loan creditors, the assessee furnished the loan confirmation and produced

M/S. MANAKSIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(3) (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 194C of the Act is not applicable to sale of customized products which are produced using material purchased form a person other than the buyer of goods. The appellant has also submitted copy of the order placed by the appellant for supply of the equipment in question. 5.2 The submissions of the appellant’s contention is that the transaction

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 194C of the Act is not applicable to sale of customized products which are produced using material purchased form a person other than the buyer of goods. The appellant has also submitted copy of the order placed by the appellant for supply of the equipment in question. 5.2 The submissions of the appellant’s contention is that the transaction

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICK GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

TDS certificate u/s. 195(1) of the Act. We find no merit in the instant argument. The fact remains that there is no material on record indicating the assessee’s payees to have rendered any service in India so as to be assessable in India. Hon'ble ITA No.2086-2088/Kol/2016 AYs 09-10 to 11-12 ACIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICK GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

TDS certificate u/s. 195(1) of the Act. We find no merit in the instant argument. The fact remains that there is no material on record indicating the assessee’s payees to have rendered any service in India so as to be assessable in India. Hon'ble ITA No.2086-2088/Kol/2016 AYs 09-10 to 11-12 ACIT

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

TDS. The same should be restricted to 30% of the disallowance i.e. 4,86,811/- in view of the recent amendment in section 40(a)(ia). The ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that the said amendment is curative in nature and comes into rescue whenever the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is warranted. Therefore, the said amendment

SANOWAR ALI KHAN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS deduction made by him. Therefore, the Ld. AO added a sum of ₹46,94,634/- (₹44,74,610 + ₹9,00,000 - ₹6,79,976) as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, regarding Ground Nos. 3 to 8, has discussed the provisions

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed a sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the assessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during the year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed a sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the assessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during the year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed a sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the assessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during the year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed a sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the assessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during the year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding