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 ]

149 ITR 383) is found to be misplaced in as much as in both these judgments the expenses found to have been incurred by the assessee were not recorded in the books of accounts and therefore its source remained unexplained. This is clearly not the factual position in the present case. 20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

TDS were to be deducted by the appellant and the provisions of section 194H r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) do not become applicable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances it is held that the appellant is not able to Justify the genuineness of the expenditure and evidence of its actual incurring arid disbursing to the concerned persons

ITO (IT), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2249/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O. (International Taxation), -Vs.- M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 4975 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

TDS Date of Nature of No. Recipient amount amou remittance payment (Rs.) nt 1. PRIME GROUP 1042448 UAE 0 13/04/2010 Commission ASSOCIATES 5568326 0 23/07/2010 10832518 0 22/06/2010 1276770 0 12/10/2010 4316014 0 21/09/2010 4920574 0 30/11/2010 5218172 0 18/01/2011 4910549 0 22/02/2011 1875582 0 11/03/2011 1728223 0 25/03/2011 2. MR.EDWARD 64534 Malta 0 08/10/2010 Commission ZAMMIT 319252 0 25/01/2011

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

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

149/- under section 10A of the Act. Accordingly, assessment in this case is being re-opened under the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after obtaining necessary approval from the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-2, Kolkata. 6. In the re-assessment proceedings the assessee took a stand that deduction

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

TDS written off' of Rs. 73,143/­, 'Travelling & Conveyance' of Rs.13,33,954/­ and 'Personal expenses' of Rs.56,000/­. 6. Having carefully considered the matter, I find that the Ld. A.O was unjustified in taking a view that the business of the assessee had not commenced, when he himself has recorded about the agreement entered by the appellant with

ITO, WD-3(2), SURI, BIRBHUM, BIRBHUM vs. SRI SWAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, BIRBHUM

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs.2,34,691/- and had also not taken the amount of Rs. 56,58,506/- under the head 'Security Charges receipt. Therefore, the AO added back the said two amounts of Rs.10,50,000/- and Rs. 56,58,506/- to the total income 2 S. K. Chakrabory, AY 2010-11 of the assessee as Undisclosed Income and Unexplained

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

TDS was availed and based\nupon the confirmation from the bank, which was pending at the time of\nassessment and which must have been received by now, and after\ngranting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after\nconsidering its submission, re-adjudicate this issue on the basis of facts\nand as per law. The assessee claims that

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

TDS had duly been deducted. This fact itself is enough to cast shadow upon the applicability of section 2(22)e of the Act. In this I.T.(SS)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd. context, the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT reported

SHELTER INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. A.O. CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.421/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shelter Infra Projects Ltd…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Dn-1 Sector V Eternity Building, Sector V, Salt Lake Sech Bhavan, Kolkata – 700091. [Pan: Aabcc2304F] Vs. A.O, Circle-11(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 10, 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 26.12.2023 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. This Is Second Round Of Appeal Before Us. Earlier, The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.10.2018 Had Remanded The Matter To The File Of The Assessing Officer For De Novo Assessment. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019 Made The Impugned Additions Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.23,98,20,955/-. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Additions So Made By The Assessing Officer Vide

section 201 of the Act certifying the aforesaid payment to M/s Sarda Vanijya (P) Ltd. by the assessee and TDS was duly deducted thereupon and further that the payee had duly taken into consideration the aforesaid payments in its return of income. The ld. counsel has also invited our attention to pages 87 & 88 of the paper-book to submit

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAIC INTEGRATED SPONGE AND POWER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

TDS and further added Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as the assessee did not provide details of the party from whom loan was taken and declared a gross total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,97,56,621.64/-. 3. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) where in after considering the documentary

BIG BOSS FOODS PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR. 1, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

149/- on account of undisclosed interest income and Rs. 16,15,672/- on account of non-deduction of TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). On the basis of information gathered on records, ld. AO re-opened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuance of notice

GPT MARECOM (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2 , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

TDS) and has duly offered the same to tax in its Return of Income, then disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act should not be resorted to and for that proposition he relied on the decision of this Coordinate bench of this Tribunal (Santosh Jain Vs. CIT, Raipur) in ITA No. 87/RPR/2014 wherein a similar order

ITO, WARD - 56(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PKS HOLDINGS, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1677/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-56(2) -Vs.- M/S. Pks .Holdings Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaifp7778G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Jcit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Updhay, Ar

149}. The AO held that the assessee has failed to prove rendering of services by the two ladies who are also wife of the partners. Hence in absence of evidences of rendering of services by the said brokers the expenses of Rs. 66 lakhs was not allowed as it failed to satisfy the test of section

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR RUIA. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR- 30, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1197/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Kumar Ruia…..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant 5, Sunny Park, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Acnpr3823K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-30, Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 23, 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 11.09.2023 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 Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating Non-Credits Of Tds Of Rs.95,80,949/- Out Of Total Tds Claim Of Rs.2,18,82,526/-. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Salary Income & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.6,52,52,390/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Vide Order Dated 17.12.2016 At A Total Income Of Rs.6,86,66,708/-. The Assessee

section 143(1)(c) and 'tax deducted at source and deposited' still persists. 9. Coming back to the context under consideration, we find that the requirement for allowing credit is only of the amount of tax deducted at source and not the amount eventually getting deposited with the Government after deduction. Since a sum of Rs.8,21,149/- was duly

SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR RUIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 32(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 143(1)(c) and 'tax deducted at source and deposited’ still persists. 9. Coming back to the context under consideration, we find that the requirement for allowing credit is only of the amount of tax deducted at source and not the amount eventually getting deposited with the Government after deduction. Since a sum of Rs.8,21,149/- was duly

VISHAL PACHISIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-44(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

section 143(l)(c) and 'tax deducted at source and deposited’ still persists. 9. Coming back to the context under consideration, we find that the requirement for allowing credit is only of the amount of tax deducted at source and not the amount eventually getting deposited with the Government after deduction. Since a sum of Rs.8,21,149/- was duly

SUBHAJIT KR. GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XXV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12

TDS of Rs.9,56,413/- and credit of seized cash of Rs.2,35,600/- as payment of advance tax. The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the appellant as self-assessment tax. Thus, as per the return of income there was claim of refund of Rs.24/-. However, on perusal of the declaration petition dated 28.03.2011 filed before

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

TDS was availed and based\nupon the confirmation from the bank, which was pending at the time of\nassessment and which must have been received by now, and after\ngranting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after\nconsidering its submission, re-adjudicate this issue on the basis of facts\nand as per law. The assessee claims that