M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

145(3) of the Act and estimated the income of the assessee by applying the said theorem. Accordingly, the gross profit from the entire business of Bhutan Lotteries was estimated by the Assessing Officer at Rs.400 crores as under:- “Face value of lottery tickets printed and claimed to have been purchased from the Royal Govt. of Bhutan-Rs.3

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INLAND ROAD TRANSPORT (P)LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS provisions as the tax was duly deducted at source and also paid. But, even otherwise, there was no case for invoking the provisions of section 15 I.T.A Nos. 1179, 1225-1226, 1426-1427, 1480-1482/ Kol/2012 & CO Nos.83,99,100 & 101/K/2012, Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. 145(3

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INLAND ROAD TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS provisions as the tax was duly deducted at source and also paid. But, even otherwise, there was no case for invoking the provisions of section 15 I.T.A Nos. 1179, 1225-1226, 1426-1427, 1480-1482/ Kol/2012 & CO Nos.83,99,100 & 101/K/2012, Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. 145(3

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INLAND ROAD TRANSPORT(P)LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS provisions as the tax was duly deducted at source and also paid. But, even otherwise, there was no case for invoking the provisions of section 15 I.T.A Nos. 1179, 1225-1226, 1426-1427, 1480-1482/ Kol/2012 & CO Nos.83,99,100 & 101/K/2012, Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. 145(3

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INLAND ROAD TRANSPORT(P)LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS provisions as the tax was duly deducted at source and also paid. But, even otherwise, there was no case for invoking the provisions of section 15 I.T.A Nos. 1179, 1225-1226, 1426-1427, 1480-1482/ Kol/2012 & CO Nos.83,99,100 & 101/K/2012, Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. 145(3

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INLAND ROAD TRANSPORT(P)LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS provisions as the tax was duly deducted at source and also paid. But, even otherwise, there was no case for invoking the provisions of section 15 I.T.A Nos. 1179, 1225-1226, 1426-1427, 1480-1482/ Kol/2012 & CO Nos.83,99,100 & 101/K/2012, Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. 145(3

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INLAND ROAD TRANSPORT(P)LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS provisions as the tax was duly deducted at source and also paid. But, even otherwise, there was no case for invoking the provisions of section 15 I.T.A Nos. 1179, 1225-1226, 1426-1427, 1480-1482/ Kol/2012 & CO Nos.83,99,100 & 101/K/2012, Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. 145(3

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INLAND ROAD TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS provisions as the tax was duly deducted at source and also paid. But, even otherwise, there was no case for invoking the provisions of section 15 I.T.A Nos. 1179, 1225-1226, 1426-1427, 1480-1482/ Kol/2012 & CO Nos.83,99,100 & 101/K/2012, Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. 145(3

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RATAN KUMAR SOMANI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS provisions as the tax was duly deducted at source and also paid. But, even otherwise, there was no case for invoking the provisions of section 15 I.T.A Nos. 1179, 1225-1226, 1426-1427, 1480-1482/ Kol/2012 & CO Nos.83,99,100 & 101/K/2012, Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. 145(3

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. G. D. CONSTRUCTION & CO., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

TDS were not deducted. This act of AO shows that he was provided with all the details of labour expense; v) The AO has not rejected the books of account and assessment was not framed u/s. 144 of the Act which proved that all the necessary details were produced before him during assessment proceeding; vi) The AO did not dispute

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

3) of section 200:] Provided that in case any person, including the principal officer of a company fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident but is not deemed

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

TDS cannot, in any circumstances, be termed as capital borrowed from the Income-tax department for the purpose of business. For claiming any expense as deduction, firstly it should qualify and fall within the ambit and scope of deductible expenditure as per the provisions of sections 30 to 37 of the Act. If an amount does not qualify

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

TDS cannot, in any circumstances, be termed as capital borrowed from the Income-tax department for the purpose of business. For claiming any expense as deduction, firstly it should qualify and fall within the ambit and scope of deductible expenditure as per the provisions of sections 30 to 37 of the Act. If an amount does not qualify

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 :-

145 days i.e., from 18/03/2015 to 10/08/2015 and whereas the order was passed on 27/11/2015. Thus, he submits that both the orders passed on 27/11/2015 passed on 27/11/2015. Thus, he submits that both the orders passed on 27/11/2015 passed on 27/11/2015. Thus, he submits that both the orders passed on 27/11/2015 is barred by limitation and consequ is barred

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JATINDRA NATH GHOSH, KOLKATA

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referring to his discussion at para-6.6 of the said assessment order, it appears that the total addition of Rs. 1,22,89,774/- consist of Rs. 3,64,349/- and Rs. 3,89,145/- for short deduction of TDS

MD. HASSAN IMAM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-53(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1211/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Md. Hassan Imami -Vs- Ito, Ward-53(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 5821 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 25.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. For that the Ld. Appellate Authority did not consider the Remand Report dated 27.01.2016 of the Ld. Assessing Officer and disallowed the part addition

DCIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEWARI WAREHOUSING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Dcit, Circle-26 M/S Tewari Warehousing Co. बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan Hide Shed Dump, Old V/S. Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Goragacha Road, Kolkata-88 Road, (South), [Pan No.Aacft 5579 K] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Vikash Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit, Range- 53, Kolkata U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Entire Gross Receipts S Business Income & Allow Deductions As Per Section 28 To 43 Of The It Act When Rental Income Of Rs.2,31,00,000/- Was Already Included In The Gross Receipts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Estimation Of Business Profits Of Rs.2,37,72,132/- Made By The Ao Though Rejection Of Assessee’S Books Of Account U/S 145(3) Considering The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Contrary To The Law & Fact Of The Case. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To, Add To, Alter Or Modify Any One Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Above.”

Section 28 to 43 of the IT Act when rental income of Rs.2,31,00,000/- was already included in the gross receipts. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the estimation of business profits of Rs.2,37,72,132/- made by the AO though rejection of assessee’s books of account u/s 145(3) considering the facts