MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

TDS should have been deducted at the rate of 10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction of tax at source but in a case, where

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on disputed additions and levying interest of Rs. 1,90,68,525/-, Rs. 13,34,79,675/- and Rs. 3,04,32,052/-respectively on the assessee by the AO whereas the assessee had filed a return of loss for Rs. 3,62,82,050/- well within the extended time of filing

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

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

124: (2008) 301 ITR 171 (Kol)(SB)(AT, wherein disallowance made in terms of s. 40A(3) has been deleted. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Inidwell Construction (supra), besides the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal noted above, we are of the considered opinion that the income of the assessee having been

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

124: (2008) 301 ITR 171 (Kol)(SB)(AT, wherein disallowance made in terms of s. 40A(3) has been deleted. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Inidwell Construction (supra), besides the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal noted above, we are of the considered opinion that the income of the assessee having been

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

TDS refund, hence, the same was rightly written off in the books of accounts. He accordingly deleted the disallowance so made by the Ld. AO, The Ld. DR could not point out any infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)’s findings on this issue, warranting our interference. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground no.2

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

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

124 TTJ (Nag) 659, the Hon’ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench under identical facts and circumstances held that the overloading charges were essentially commercial in nature and cannot be characterized as penalty irrespective of the nomenclature given to such charges by the Railways. The Hon’ble ITAT has held that “ As regards overloading charges, we have to take into consideration

DCIT, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. 3 GUYS, HOWRAH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

3 Guys Page 11 I.T. Authority [Form 26AS] came into existence only much later. Thus it is held that the credit for TDS of Rs.20,18,902/- corresponding to the income of Rs.1,78,19,084/- not be allowed in Assessment Year 2007-08 as the corresponding return of the Appellant and the information furnished to the Income Tax Authority

PHILIPS ELECTRONIS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

124] from both software development and products. However segmental information in relation to software products & software services is not separately available. Research & Development activity : The company undertakes [Page 25] research and development activity, whereas the Appellant does not engage in any R&D activity. Sl.No Relevant Assessmen Broad Citation Para & . case law t Year Reason for Page No. 36 A.Yr

M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

124] from both software development and products. However segmental information in relation to software products & software services is not separately available. Research & Development activity : The company undertakes [Page 25] research and development activity, whereas the Appellant does not engage in any R&D activity. Sl.No Relevant Assessmen Broad Citation Para & . case law t Year Reason for Page No. 36 A.Yr

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

section 92A(2) of the Act. The assessee is engaged in 4 business segments as detailed below: 1. Consumer lifestyle 2. Healthcare 3. Lighting 4. Software Development Consumer Lifestyle consists of Domestic Appliances & Personal Care and Consumer Electronics divisions. It consists of Television, Shaving & Beauty, Audio & Video Multimedia, Domestic Appliances, Health & Wellness, and Peripherals & Accessories etc. A benchmarking study

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 92A(2) of the Act. The assessee is engaged in 4 business segments as detailed below: 1. Consumer lifestyle 2. Healthcare 3. Lighting 4. Software Development Consumer Lifestyle consists of Domestic Appliances & Personal Care and Consumer Electronics divisions. It consists of Television, Shaving & Beauty, Audio & Video Multimedia, Domestic Appliances, Health & Wellness, and Peripherals & Accessories etc. A benchmarking study

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

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-. 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS under section 194C of the Act. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(a) on account of ocean freight to the extent of Rs.28.24 crores. The deletion of disallowance by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of balance amount

DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SOUVIK BASU, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in all the three cases

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 428/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Sudipta Maity [Pan: Aogpm 3882 A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS of Rs 16,04,063/- on the entire emoluments paid to the assessee including the foreign allowances paid to the assessee u/s 192(1) of the Act. The assessee filed his return of income for the Asst Year 2013-14 declaring taxable income of Rs 5,73,320/- (being the salary received in India alone) after claiming deduction

ACIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BODHISATTAVA CHATTOPADHYAY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in all the three cases

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 428/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Sudipta Maity [Pan: Aogpm 3882 A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS of Rs 16,04,063/- on the entire emoluments paid to the assessee including the foreign allowances paid to the assessee u/s 192(1) of the Act. The assessee filed his return of income for the Asst Year 2013-14 declaring taxable income of Rs 5,73,320/- (being the salary received in India alone) after claiming deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATAB-N, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUDIPTA MAITI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in all the three cases

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 428/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Sudipta Maity [Pan: Aogpm 3882 A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS of Rs 16,04,063/- on the entire emoluments paid to the assessee including the foreign allowances paid to the assessee u/s 192(1) of the Act. The assessee filed his return of income for the Asst Year 2013-14 declaring taxable income of Rs 5,73,320/- (being the salary received in India alone) after claiming deduction

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

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management\n(P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\ndated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule\n8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-.\n7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAMPION COMMERCIAL CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Champion P-7, Chowringhee Commercial Co. Ltd., Square, 3Rd Floor, P-15, Cit Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-73 [Pan No.Aabcc 2373 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “I. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,50,938/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Overrule The Judicial Pronouncement Of Cit Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited (1951) (191) Itr (Sc) Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.13,91,404/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The It Act, 1961. Iii. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.20,25,329/- On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The

124/-. In view of the settled position of law where the appellant was having sufficient capital it shall be presumed that the investments have been made from its own funds and therefore no part of the borrowed funds were utilized for investments in shares. It is further observed that the borrowed funds were secured against hypothecation of stocks and used

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management\n(P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\ndated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule\n8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-.\n7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted