D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:-- (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :-- "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:-- (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :-- "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

TDS certificate is essential. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 6. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a) (i) of the Act:— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

139(5) of the Act within the stipulated time frame as per statute. And as such, this contention of the AO is incorrect in law. 13 Padma Logistics & Khanij Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2010-11 23. The other reason given by the AO to reject the revised ROI was that both the demerging company and the resultant company have claimed

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS is nothing but a derivative of tax and is not an allowable expenditure even under the provisions of section 36 and 37 of the Act. 16. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to refer to certain provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act are as under:\n“40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the\nfollowing amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income\nchargeable under the head “Profits and gains of busi-ness or profession”,-\n(a) in the case of any assessee-\n(ia) thirty

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

139(4) of the Act) declaring total income at Rs 15,48,850/- . The ld AO observed that in response to notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the authorized representative of the assessee attended and submitted details , which were examined with annexure, reports etc along with the return of income and kept on record

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SARAF SERVICES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

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

139(1) of the Act should be allowed as a deduction. In other words it was argued that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) has to be held to be retrospective w.e.f. 1-4-2005. The ITAT Kolkata Bench by its order dated 15.12.2010, held as follows: “8. After hearing the rival

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

TDS. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance and we confirm the same.” 4.As the issue raised by the revenue is exactly on similar facts in the present case, taking a consistent view, we are of the view that the amended provisions of section 194C(1) of the Act will not apply

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are as under: “40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of busi­ness or profession”,- (a) in the case of any assessee- (ia) thirty per cent

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

139(1) of the Act by the assessee, or for failing to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the failing to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the failing to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the Act etc. Thus, such non-est notice cannot

PASSPORT JEANS PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

139 or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required under those sub-sections; or 8 Passport Jeans Pvt. Ltd., AY 2013-14 (f) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration mentioned in section 197A; or (g) to furnish a certificate as required by section 203 or section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHATOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

TDS and consequently, the deletion of disallowance by CIT(A) is confirmed. This common issue of all the three appeals of revenue is dismissed.” 14. From the foregoing findings of the Tribunal, it is quite evident that the Tribunal had upheld the assessee’s claim for non-deduction of tax at source having regard to the pre- amended provisions

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act are as under:\n“40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the\nfollowing amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income\nchargeable under the head “Profits and gains of busi-ness or profession”,-\n(a) in the case of any assessee-\n(ia) thirty

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]

139 or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required under those sub-sections; or (f) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration mentioned in section 197A; or (g) to furnish a certificate as required by section 203 or section 206C; or (h) to deduct

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]

139 or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required under those sub-sections; or (f) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration mentioned in section 197A; or (g) to furnish a certificate as required by section 203 or section 206C; or (h) to deduct

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]

139 or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required under those sub-sections; or (f) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration mentioned in section 197A; or (g) to furnish a certificate as required by section 203 or section 206C; or (h) to deduct