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

TDS not made (as per audit report) has also been disallowed by the assessee. In view of the above, no adverse inference is drawn and assessment is completed on returned income.” 5. In the computation of income, the income as per the return of income filed was taken as Rs. ‘Nil’ to which the income as computed u/s 143(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

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

TDS thereby invoking sec. 40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the submission of the AR on this point along with the case laws relied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

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

TDS thereby invoking sec. 40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the submission of the AR on this point along with the case laws relied

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’ Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. Heard learned departmental representative. Case file perused. 2. The Revenue’s former substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal seeks to reverse the CIT(A)’s action deleting commission disallowance of ₹1

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]

143(1) of the Act loses its importance. And we find in this case the assessee has rightly filed the revised return of income u/s 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

DEEPSHIKHA TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(1) of the Act is not correct. Since the income of the amalgamating company had been included in the income of the amalgamated company as per the provisions of Section 199(1) of the Act read with Section 198 of the Act, the credit for the TDS

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the submission made by Shri Chandak during the TDS proceedings cannot be relied upon as he was acting as an employee of ITA No.116/Kol/2014 & CO. 12/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2007-08 ACIT, Cir-40, Kol. Vs. Sundarlal Mohanlal Sarda & Others Page 6 SMPL. Moreover, Shri Chandak was not aware

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

143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ I.T.A. No.387/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section

PARAMARTH SADHAK SANGH ,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(E) CIR -2/NOW ITO(EXEM), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Paramarth Sadhak Sangh……..………………....…………..……………...……..….…….........Appellant P-113, New Raipur Road (E) Kolkata – 700 084 [Pan : Aaatp 4767 F] Vs. Adit (E), Circle-2/ Now I.T.O. (Exem), Ward-14, Kolkata….……………............Respondent

section 143(1)(a) of the Act. It is not open to the Assessing Officer to make any adjustment in the returned income by disallowing any claim for deduction, allowance or relief, unless he is satisfied on the basis of information available in the return, documents and the accounts accompanying it, that such a claim is inadmissible on the face

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 :-

143(3) of the Act. He submits that at best it is a mistake. submits that at best it is a mistake. d) On the issue of limitation, the ld. D/ On the issue of limitation, the ld. D/R submitted that Section 144C of R submitted that Section 144C of the Act is complete code in itself. He relied

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

143(3) of the Act on 30-12-2020. The AO considered these claims of expenditure in commission and held as follows:- (B) Commission of Rs. 63,15,457/- Debited under head Selling, General & Administrative exp. Section Schedule 19 of P/L A/c. The A/R during the stage of hearing was asked to produce the details of parties to whom

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, HOOGLY, HOOGHLY vs. SWAPAN KUMAR MONDAL, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Hooghly……...……...………………...……..Appellant Swapan Kumar Mondal..…….…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….…..Respondent Uttarayan Station Road Chinsurah R.S. Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 102 [Pan : Aedpm 6336 A]

section 143(1), must, therefore, lie in whether or not the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment can be held to be sustainable in law. 11. It is also well settled in law, as has been held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R B Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxman

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

1,18,472/- for non-deduction of TDS under section 194-I of\nthe Act though TDS was actually made and paid to the credit of Central\nGovernment.\n26.1 It was stated that the TDS was actually made and paid to the\ncredit of the Central Government. The assessee submitted that the fact\nof this case is elaborately discussed

ELLENBARRIE INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed, and ground

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1687/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ellenbarrie Industrial Gases Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata Ltd. 34, Ripon Street, Kolkata – 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaace 5770 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri A.K. Bandyopadhyay, Fca Respondent By :Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-16, Kolkata, In Appeal No.352/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2014-15/W-8(2), Dated 13.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S154/143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 16-04-2009. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Lncome Tax (Appeals)- 16, To The Extent That He Has Confirmed The Order Of Ld. Lncome Tax Officer Ward 8(2) Kolkata, Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Lncome Tax (Appeals)-16 Had Ignored The Fact That Assessed Tax For The Purpose Of Section 234B & 234C Of The Lncome Tax Act 1961 Was Computed Without Considering Available Mat Credit Of Rs.12,91,616/-Upto The Assessment Year 2006-2007. Computation Of Lnterest Under Section 234B & 234C Was Not Made In Accordance With Explanation 1(V) To Sub-Section (1) Of Section 234B & 234C Of Lncome Tax Act 1961;

TDS claim of the assessee at Rs. 4,35,927/- instead of Rs.4,36,617. The brief facts apropos this issue are that in the assessee`s case under consideration, the return of income was processed under section 143(1

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3) read with section 144B of the Act on 08.09.2022, wherein total income was determined at Rs. 1,61,28,130/- after making additions/disallowance of (i) sum of Rs. 5,41,897/- disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards payments made without deducting I.T.A. No.: 1711/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing

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

143(2) and a requisition u/s. 142(1) were also served on the assessee to produce relevant documents in support of his return. On examination of such information as brought on record, the AO made four additions on account of Studio Hire Charges of Rs. 87,388/-, an amount of Rs. 1,13,700/- on account of instrument Hire Charges

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)

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. The total turnover declared by the assessee was Rs 1.66 crore from M/s VIBGYOR. In addition to business income, the assessee is a partner

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 for AY 2018-19. Since the grounds of appeal are common and the facts are identical, we dispose of both these appeal by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 2. The grounds of appeal

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG) (P)LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 for AY 2018-19. Since the grounds of appeal are common and the facts are identical, we dispose of both these appeal by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 2. The grounds of appeal