MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

B. Wadkar, Asst.\nCIT reported in 268 ITR\ne. Loan Transaction Already Verified in Scrutiny Assessment\nThe loan of 21 crore from M/s. Nidhi Agro Pvt. Ltd. was thoroughly\nexamined during the original assessment under Section 143(3) and\nwas accepted after verification, including confirmation, bank\nstatements, TDS deduction, and the lender's response under\nSection 133(6).\nHon

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

B of the Income-tax Act; a person is required to deduct tax on certain specified payments at the specified rates if the payment exceeds specified threshold. In case of non- deduction of tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, he is deemed to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) in respect of the amount

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]

B) Government of India Ministry of Finance Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) New Delhi,Dated: 11th March, 2016 Office Memorandum Sub: Non-deposit of tax deducted at source by the deductor- Recover}' of demand against the deductee assessee. Vide letter of even number dated 01.06.2015, the Board had issued directions to the field officers that in case

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

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

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

149 taxmann.com 181 (Calcutta)\nf. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del) (A. Y. 1999-\n2000)\ng. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [2008] 118 TTJ 228 (Delhi)\nh. ACIT v. Eicher Ltd. [(2006) 101 TTJ 369 (Del)]\ni. Impulse (India) (P) Ltd v. ACIT[(2008) 22 SOT 368 (Del)]\n7.7 It is also submitted that no disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

149/- at· the rate of 3.6% per annum. Accordingly the Ld. AO/TPO shall recomputed such interest income at the rate of 3.6% after giving credit for the income suo moto offered by the appellant in the return of income. Ground No. 6 is therefore partly allowed.” Mr. Shankar’s case during the course of hearing that the TPO’s order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

149/- at· the rate of 3.6% per annum. Accordingly the Ld. AO/TPO shall recomputed such interest income at the rate of 3.6% after giving credit for the income suo moto offered by the appellant in the return of income. Ground No. 6 is therefore partly allowed.” Mr. Shankar’s case during the course of hearing that the TPO’s order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

149/- at· the rate of 3.6% per annum. Accordingly the Ld. AO/TPO shall recomputed such interest income at the rate of 3.6% after giving credit for the income suo moto offered by the appellant in the return of income. Ground No. 6 is therefore partly allowed.” Mr. Shankar’s case during the course of hearing that the TPO’s order

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

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

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

DEEPAK BAJAJ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Deepak Bajaj Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata 77, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Gd. Vs. Floor, Kalighat, Kolkata- 700026. Pan: Aeepb 5525 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dilip Chatterjee, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)- 12, Kolkata Vide Order No. 40/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Ward-40(1)/2014-15 Dated 09.06.2016 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(1)/147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

B-Bench Kol, dated 31" March 2022 in ITA No-73/Kol/2020) vi. For that and under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law CIT(A)-12 Kol, while passing an order in absence of the appellate/assessee should have noted the fact whether the copy of "Reason to believe of escapement of income “ was duly served

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

B) Government of India Ministry of Finance Central Board of Direct Taxes I.T.A. No.1197/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Kumar Ruia (CBDT) New Delhi,Dated: 11th March, 2016 Office Memorandum Sub: Non-deposit of tax deducted at source by the deductor- Recover}' of demand against the deductee assessee. Vide letter of even number dated 01.06.2015, the Board had issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav (Vice President), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

B) of the Act.'' 1. In the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II vs. M/s. R.E.I. Agro Ltd., reported in 120131 144 1TD (Kol) 141, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has held that- "The Contribution towards provident fund, even if deposited beyond the stipulated period, is allowable by virtue of the amendment " 6.58 In view

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

B) Government of India Ministry of Finance Central Board of Direct Taxes Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 764/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vishal Pachisia. (CBDT) New Delhi, Dated: 11th March, 2016 Office Memorandum Sub: Non-deposit of tax deducted at source by the deductor- Recover}' of demand against the deductee assessee. Vide letter of even number dated

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

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

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/

b. Payment to Niharika Bisserte for research work Rs. 2,25,000 c. Rent paid {or Mumbai Office Rs.12,06,482 d. Payment to studio Praxis for Architectural Consultancy fee Rs. 43,200 e. Brokerage paid to Knight Frank India Pvt. Ltd Rs. 3,24,000 f. Depreciation on fixed assets installed at Mumbai Office