TARUN KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS statements has been assessed, but the credit has not been allowed, and the assessee contends that its actual taxable income is ₹22,40,059/- after allowing for deduction under section 80C amounting to ₹1,50,000/- and under section 80TTA amounting to ₹5,039/-, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside

SWAPAN DAS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-45(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Swapan Das Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3F/1G, Gagan Sarkar Road, Vs. 45(3), Kolkata. Beliaghata, Kolkata-700010. (Pan Agrpd2980P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Pinki Shaw, Fca Respondent By : Shri Sudip Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-13, Kolkata Vide Appeal No.10542/Cit(A)-13/Wd- 45(3)/Kol/2016-17 Dated 28.02.2019 For A.Y. 2014-15 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-45(3), Kolkata Dated 28.12.2016. 2. Smt. Pinki Shaw, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Sudip Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

TDS on various expenses, it was submitted that expenses individually did not exceed the prescribed limits and majority of them were paid to the farmers/breeders who are out of the purview of the Act. Ld. AO completed the assessment by making the additions for which assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. In the course of first

V.K.PURI.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR - 26,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 144 of the Act as under : i) Income as per return : 4,52,166.00 Addition made in the assessment ii) Undisclosed investment 49,50,127.00 iii) Income declared by kum. Neha puri 3,63,470.00 ITA No.1904-1905/Kol/2012 A.Ys. 2002-03 & 1997-98 V.K.Puri v. ACIT Cir-26,Kol. Page 6 iv) Income declared by kum. Divya puri

V.K.PURI.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR - 26,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 144 of the Act as under : i) Income as per return : 4,52,166.00 Addition made in the assessment ii) Undisclosed investment 49,50,127.00 iii) Income declared by kum. Neha puri 3,63,470.00 ITA No.1904-1905/Kol/2012 A.Ys. 2002-03 & 1997-98 V.K.Puri v. ACIT Cir-26,Kol. Page 6 iv) Income declared by kum. Divya puri

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

144 ITD 21(Del) has accepted such a claim qua disallownace between fair market value of shares of ESOP and exercise of the option at the instance of the concerned employees to be allowable revenue expenditure. The assessee’s paper book’s pages 104, 105, 107,108, 109, 111 and 117 inter alia comprise of the relevant SEBI guidelines, ICAI

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

144 ITD 21(Del) has accepted such a claim qua disallownace between fair market value of shares of ESOP and exercise of the option at the instance of the concerned employees to be allowable revenue expenditure. The assessee’s paper book’s pages 104, 105, 107,108, 109, 111 and 117 inter alia comprise of the relevant SEBI guidelines, ICAI

SRI MANINDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR,BURDWAN vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2201/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Manindra Mohan Vs. J.C.I.T, Range-1, Asansol Mazumdar Sahana Apartment Mother Teressa 19, Radhangar Road, Burnpur- 713325, Road, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – Dist- Burdwan. 713304. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aelpm 0074 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS credit to the tune of Rs.60,004/- on mobilization advance and not entire contract receipts were received in the relevant Assessment Year. 3. Now, we shall take first grievance of the assessee, which relatesto disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A read with rule 8D to the tune of Rs.3

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

144 ITD 141 has given relief to the assessee which order has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in GA No. 3022 of 2013. We note that the Hon’ble Delhi High court in Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 wherein it has been held that where no exempt income was earned by the assessee

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

144 of a transport operator. The Ld A.O. did not consider the past history of the assessee and comparable cases Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 but straightway applied the rate prescribed under section 44AD which applies where no books are maintained and no Tax Audit Report is obligatory." ii. The Hon'ble Rajasthan

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

144 of a transport operator. The Ld A.O. did not consider the past history of the assessee and comparable cases Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 but straightway applied the rate prescribed under section 44AD which applies where no books are maintained and no Tax Audit Report is obligatory." ii. The Hon'ble Rajasthan

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

144 of a transport operator. The Ld A.O. did not consider the past history of the assessee and comparable cases Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 but straightway applied the rate prescribed under section 44AD which applies where no books are maintained and no Tax Audit Report is obligatory." ii. The Hon'ble Rajasthan

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

144 of a transport operator. The Ld A.O. did not consider the past history of the assessee and comparable cases Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 but straightway applied the rate prescribed under section 44AD which applies where no books are maintained and no Tax Audit Report is obligatory." ii. The Hon'ble Rajasthan

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

144 of a transport operator. The Ld A.O. did not consider the past history of the assessee and comparable cases Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 but straightway applied the rate prescribed under section 44AD which applies where no books are maintained and no Tax Audit Report is obligatory." ii. The Hon'ble Rajasthan

NARESH ANCHALIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 32(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

144 read with section 147. This fact was mentioned by the ld. Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee did not file his return electronically and, therefore, he treated the proceeding as an ex-parte proceeding qua the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer did not make any addition. He accepted the returned income. The grievance of the assesese

RAM AZAD PAL,DURGAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Income Tax Officer, Ram Azad Pal Ward 2(4), Ranchi Colony, Benachity, Aaykar Bhavan, City Centre, Faridpur, Durgapur, Pin-713213, Vs. Durgapur, Pin-713216, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aoypp0987E Assessee By : Shri Vishal Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nicholas Murmu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

144 read with section 144B of the Act on 15.03.2023 after making following three additions: (1) Unexplained investment of Rs.9,56,627/- u/s 69 of the Act on the ground that on the basis of monthly average of turnover for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2013-14 the additional operating capital required was Rs.9,56,627/-. (ii) Business income

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rjesh Kumar, Am ]

144 of the Act. Before making the ad- hoc disallowance of 90% of the site expenses, no defects in the books of accounts were brought on record by the Ld. CIT(A) nor books of accounts were rejected by him. In the 9 Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd. AY 2014-15 present case, the Ld. CIT(A) himself accepted

SHREE SHIROMANI PROJECT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.106/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. Ltd. ...……………………....………....Appellant C/O Advocate Amit Agarwal, 50D, Mukta Ram Babu Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aabcv0376L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Dated 21St March, 2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant In Liminie Without Dealing With The Merits Of The Case & By Not Passing Order On The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Appellant Assessee Company Against The Impugned Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. 3. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in dismissing the Appeal of the Appellant Assessee Company and thereby confirming the addition of the sum of Rs.2,94,13,031, being legitimate receipts received by the Assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. SHRI SHYAMAL KR. DEY, PURBA MEDINIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

TDS on freight charges, the AO made disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for a sum of Rs.80,20,365/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has divided these freight charges in two parts - 1st, the payments below Rs.50,000/- in aggregate in a year and 2nd - payments above