BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 143(3) and\nwas accepted after verification, including confirmation, bank\nstatements, TDS deduction, and the lender's response under\nSection 133

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWAJIT GUHA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

section 133(6) of the Act have not been confronted to the assessee. In view of above we find no reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A). Hence this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 26. Next issued raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

133(6) of the Act that it had never supplied any material whatsoever to the assessee. Following the findings in the order of assessment for A.Y.2009-10, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs.15,55,200/-. 4. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) deleted the addition made

IRIS CLOTHINGS LTD,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS deduction at source in respect of all the parties. The ld. Assessing Officer in order toindependently verify the transactions of unsecured loans, issued notices under section 133

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133 (6) of the Act to the lenders where duly acknowledged and all the lenders confirmed the loan transactions by filing the documents which were placed before the tribunal in the form of a paper book. These materials were available on the file of the assessing officer and there is no discussion on this aspect. Thus, we find that

I.T.O WD - 3(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S AMIYA CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

133(6) of the Act. The Inspector of income tax has also confirmed the expenses of material expenses and labour expenses. Ld.AR relied on the order of Ld.CIT (A). 6. From the aforesaid discussion, we find that the labour expenses were disallowed on account of violation of TDS provision u/s 194C of the Act. But Ld.CIT(A) granted the relief

DCIT,CIR-43,KOL, KOLKATA vs. S.K.AGARWALA & CO, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 133(6) of the Act to all lenders were also responded by the parties confirming the transactions by filing the necessary evidences. In our opinion the failure of the loan creditors to make personal appearance is not a ground to hold that the transactions were not genuine and/or the creditworthiness of the loan creditors was not proved. We have

DCIT,CIR-43,KOL, KOLKATA vs. S.K.AGARWALA & CO, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 133(6) of the Act to all lenders were also responded by the parties confirming the transactions by filing the necessary evidences. In our opinion the failure of the loan creditors to make personal appearance is not a ground to hold that the transactions were not genuine and/or the creditworthiness of the loan creditors was not proved. We have

DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. MAXCAB INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, 67/C, Balaram Dey Street, E.M. Bypass, Vs. West Bengal-700006 West Bengal-700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aancm1997Q Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Ms. Nandini Surekh, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025

section 133(6) and the said notice was duly complied. 5.11 Regarding loan taken from Manish Co Private Ltd ('MCPL'), I find from the records that during the instant year, the assessee company has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- from MCPL. Interest on such loan was charged of Rs. 24,42,740/- (subject to TDS

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ANS LEATHER COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1071/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata Vs. Ans Leather Company

133(6) of the Act, to different parties to verify the genuineness ofSundry Creditors. The assessing officer issued the notices to the following parties viz:(1). Raj Deo Ram (2). Md. Akeel Ahmed (3). Surendra Ram (4). Abdur Rahim (5). Md. Wasi (6).Hasibur Rahman and(7). Md. Naushad. But the notices issued to these parties were returned back

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singhand Shriwaseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

section 133(6). The Ld DR also submitted that the transaction between the parties in relation to target incentives was subject to TDS