PASSPORT JEANS PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

15. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department made two fold submissions; 16. One was that, by virtue of Section 234E, the liability to pay fee had already accrued since there was failure to submit return either under Section 200(3) of the Act or under Section 206C (3) of the Act. Section 234E can be said

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

15. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department made two fold submissions; 16. One was that, by virtue of Section 234E, the liability to pay fee had already accrued since there was failure to submit return either under Section 200(3) of the Act or under Section 206C (3) of the Act. Section 234E can be said

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

15. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department made two fold submissions; 16. One was that, by virtue of Section 234E, the liability to pay fee had already accrued since there was failure to submit return either under Section 200(3) of the Act or under Section 206C (3) of the Act. Section 234E can be said

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

15. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department made two fold submissions; 16. One was that, by virtue of Section 234E, the liability to pay fee had already accrued since there was failure to submit return either under Section 200(3) of the Act or under Section 206C (3) of the Act. Section 234E can be said

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

15. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department made two fold submissions; 16. One was that, by virtue of Section 234E, the liability to pay fee had already accrued since there was failure to submit return either under Section 200(3) of the Act or under Section 206C (3) of the Act. Section 234E can be said

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

15. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department made two fold submissions; 16. One was that, by virtue of Section 234E, the liability to pay fee had already accrued since there was failure to submit return either under Section 200(3) of the Act or under Section 206C (3) of the Act. Section 234E can be said

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

15. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department made two fold submissions; 16. One was that, by virtue of Section 234E, the liability to pay fee had already accrued since there was failure to submit return either under Section 200(3) of the Act or under Section 206C (3) of the Act. Section 234E can be said

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

15. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department made two fold submissions; 16. One was that, by virtue of Section 234E, the liability to pay fee had already accrued since there was failure to submit return either under Section 200(3) of the Act or under Section 206C (3) of the Act. Section 234E can be said

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

15. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department made two fold submissions; 16. One was that, by virtue of Section 234E, the liability to pay fee had already accrued since there was failure to submit return either under Section 200(3) of the Act or under Section 206C (3) of the Act. Section 234E can be said

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS under section 195(1) is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The assessee was not bound to deduct tax at source once Explanation 2 to section 10(15

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS under section 195(1) is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The assessee was not bound to deduct tax at source once Explanation 2 to section 10(15

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

TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act are as under:\n“40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the\nfollowing amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income\nchargeable under the head “Profits and gains of busi-ness or profession”,-\n(a) in the case of any assessee-\n(ia) thirty

ACIT,CIR-2, LTU - 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Circle – 2, Ltu, Kolkata.....................................................................................Appellant 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. Uco Bank……………………………………………………..................................................Respondent 10, Btm Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Aaacu 3561 B] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 728/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Uco Bank……………………………………………………............................................Cross-Objector 10, Btm Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Aaacu 3561 B] A.C.I.T, Circle – 2, Ltu, Kolkata.................................................................................Respondent 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri D.S. Damle, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10, 20219 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17Th , 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 23, Kolkata Dated 29.01.2019 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2019. 2. In The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue, The Following Grounds Are Raised:

TDS. Hence, it is clearly taxable. Copy of the printout of prospectus is attached. The prospectus of HUDCO and IRFC is too voluminous and hence not attached. The scheme as set out by the Government of India is the same for all the three tax-free Bonds. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)- 23 has erred in law and facts

GAUTAM ARORA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 354/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gautam Arora Dcit, (International Taxation)- Flat No. 052, Block 40 Vs 1(1), Kolkata Dlf Garden City Near Psbb Millenium School Omr, Thalambur Chennai - 603103 [Pan : Aerpa7725B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 128 (One Hundred Twenty Eight) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of Covid-19 Which Has Been Excluded By 2

TDS has been deducted by the employer, this fact cannot be a determinative of the taxability of resident or non-resident in terms of provisions of the Act. What is relevant is, whether the income can be said to be received or deemed to be received in India. Sub-section (2) of section 5 merely provides that total income

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

15. Now, in order to satisfy the requirements of principal-agent relationship, certain conditions laid down in the Explanation (i) to section 194H are required to be fulfilled. These are as follows: 15.1. Payment should have been received or receivable directly or indirectly. 15.2. It should be received or receivable by a person acting on or behalf of another person

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

15. Now, in order to satisfy the requirements of principal-agent relationship, certain conditions laid down in the Explanation (i) to section 194H are required to be fulfilled. These are as follows: 15.1. Payment should have been received or receivable directly or indirectly. 15.2. It should be received or receivable by a person acting on or behalf of another person

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (TDS) CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194H of the Act. 8.2 However the present assessee has modified the agreement with its distributors and its relevant clauses of the agreement with M/s Rajsikha Communication, one of the distributors, for prepaid business model w.e.f. 21st April 2009 on sample basis are reproduced below:- “2. APPOINTMENT ITA No.1499-1502, 1537-1540/Kol/2015 & 136-137 & 232-233/Kol/2016 Vodafone East

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194H of the Act. 8.2 However the present assessee has modified the agreement with its distributors and its relevant clauses of the agreement with M/s Rajsikha Communication, one of the distributors, for prepaid business model w.e.f. 21st April 2009 on sample basis are reproduced below:- “2. APPOINTMENT ITA No.1499-1502, 1537-1540/Kol/2015 & 136-137 & 232-233/Kol/2016 Vodafone East