SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 30(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 to the credit of the Government on or before the last date for filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act for the relevant AY have to be allowed as deduction. Admittedly in the case of the Assessee payments were so made before the said due date and in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

section 143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken, it would be a case of formation of no option and, hence, in such cases assessment order itself records that issue was raised and is decided in favour of assessee; reassessment proceedings in said cases will be hit by principle of ‘change of opinion’. In Raymond Woollen Mills

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

TDS have been duly deducted under section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The calculation of perquisites has been carried out as per method prescribed under explanation of section 1 7(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.r. 3(8) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. Name, Addresses and PAN of employees who have exercised option under

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1)\ndated 30-04-2013 asking details of loan taken.\nThe AO, in the course of assessment, also conducted enquiries u/s\n133(6) with the lender. M/s. Nidhi Agro Pvt. Ltd. confirmed the loan\ntransaction to the Assessing Officer\nvide reply letter dated 17.12.2013 (copy at Page-60 enclosed. The\nloan was subsequently repaid along with interest (net of TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

1% of dividend income. Hence we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CITA in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground No. 9 raised by the assessee is dismissed and Ground No. 5 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 12. Disallowance on account of Commission paid to Airport Authority of India for non-deduction of tax at source

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

1% of dividend income. Hence we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CITA in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground No. 9 raised by the assessee is dismissed and Ground No. 5 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 12. Disallowance on account of Commission paid to Airport Authority of India for non-deduction of tax at source

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

1) of the Act is as under: a. The discount/incentives provided by the Appellant is in the nature of commission and is covered within the meaning of section 194H of the Act. b. On a co-joint reading of section 194H and section 28 (iv) of the Act, Appellant was liable to withhold tax. c. Further, on failure to withhold

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

1) of the Act is as under: a. The discount/incentives provided by the Appellant is in the nature of commission and is covered within the meaning of section 194H of the Act. b. On a co-joint reading of section 194H and section 28 (iv) of the Act, Appellant was liable to withhold tax. c. Further, on failure to withhold

SMT. SUCHARITA KAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-55(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

150 guests, it is very difficult to gather the information regarding the status and full address of such persons. In this regard we may refer to the provision u/section 56(2)(vii) of the Act relevant to the year under consideration: Section - 56, Income-tax Act, 1961-2009 F.—Income from other sources Income from other sources 56. (1) Income

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 refund, hence, the same was rightly written off in the books of accounts. He accordingly deleted the disallowance so made by the Ld. AO, The Ld. DR could not point out any infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)’s findings on this issue, warranting our interference. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground no.2

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

150 ITR 195 (Kar.) / Calico Dyeing and Printing Works vs. 341 ITR 26 it was held that for giving the benefit of section 36(1)(iii) to the assessee, what is necessary to examine is whether the assessee has used the borrowed capital for the purpose of business, if that is found to be true, then, one need not examine

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

150 ITR 195 (Kar.) / Calico Dyeing and Printing Works vs. 341 ITR 26 it was held that for giving the benefit of section 36(1)(iii) to the assessee, what is necessary to examine is whether the assessee has used the borrowed capital for the purpose of business, if that is found to be true, then, one need not examine

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

150 ITR 195 (Kar.) / Calico Dyeing and Printing Works vs. 341 ITR 26 it was held that for giving the benefit of section 36(1)(iii) to the assessee, what is necessary to examine is whether the assessee has used the borrowed capital for the purpose of business, if that is found to be true, then, one need not examine

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

150 ITR 195 (Kar.) / Calico Dyeing and Printing Works vs. 341 ITR 26 it was held that for giving the benefit of section 36(1)(iii) to the assessee, what is necessary to examine is whether the assessee has used the borrowed capital for the purpose of business, if that is found to be true, then, one need not examine

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 115JB. The AO is directed to verify the facts and allow the claim of the assessee. The ground of appeal no. 3 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No. 4 The appellant submitted as under: Short grant of TDS Credit (Rs. 86,09,86,261/-) A. Brief Facts & Submission 1.0. During the previous year relevant

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 115JB. The AO is directed to verify the facts and allow the claim of the assessee. The ground of appeal no. 3 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No. 4 The appellant submitted as under: Short grant of TDS Credit (Rs. 86,09,86,261/-) A. Brief Facts & Submission 1.0. During the previous year relevant

M/S DIVAKAR SOLAR SYSTEM LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

TDS effected therefrom, receipt was offered to tax in the hands of the payee and hence the disallowance made in the hands of the assessee has lead to double taxation of the same amount, which is not permissible in law.” 4.4. The ld AR reiterated the arguments made before the lower authorities. He argued that

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 ]

150/-. Thereafter, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Subsequently the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued on the assessee company. Pursuant to the notices, the AO acknowledges that

HITT vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

150/- as fees for technical services under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Based on the directions of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP in short) wherein the Hon’ble DRP alleged the constitution of an Installation PE of the assessee in India, the ld AO attributed Rs 2,63,46,387/- being 10 11 I.T.A