Search: TDS | BharatTax

ELLENBARRIE INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed, and ground

ITA 1687/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1687/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ellenbarrie Industrial Gases Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata Ltd. 34, Ripon Street, Kolkata – 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaace 5770 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri A.K. Bandyopadhyay, Fca Respondent By :Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-16, Kolkata, In Appeal No.352/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2014-15/W-8(2), Dated 13.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S154/143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 16-04-2009. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Lncome Tax (Appeals)- 16, To The Extent That He Has Confirmed The Order Of Ld. Lncome Tax Officer Ward 8(2) Kolkata, Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Lncome Tax (Appeals)-16 Had Ignored The Fact That Assessed Tax For The Purpose Of Section 234B & 234C Of The Lncome Tax Act 1961 Was Computed Without Considering Available Mat Credit Of Rs.12,91,616/-Upto The Assessment Year 2006-2007. Computation Of Lnterest Under Section 234B & 234C Was Not Made In Accordance With Explanation 1(V) To Sub-Section (1) Of Section 234B & 234C Of Lncome Tax Act 1961;

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

150 also charged interest under Section 234B and 234C. The Assessing Officer completely ignored the settled legal issue that before charging interest under Section 234B and 234C, MAT credit was to be first allowed to the assessee. The charging of interest under Section 234B and 234C by the Assessing Officer, as a consequence of the order passed under Section

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

ITA 2458/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

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

Section 139(1)Section 194CSection 24Section 40

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

ITA 116/KOL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

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

Section 147Section 148

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

ITA 465/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Paul, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(vi)Section 192Section 250Section 37

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

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

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

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

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

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

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

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

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. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1925/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

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. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1947/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

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

ITA 2239/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

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

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

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

ITA 2584/KOL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

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

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

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

ITA 852/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)

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

ITA 2613/KOL/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)

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

ITA 488/KOL/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)

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

ITA 1019/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)

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

ITA 377/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

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

ITA 645/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

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

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

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

ITA 12/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rjesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

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 HOLLAND INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY B.V vs. DCIT, (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 290/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Sourav Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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

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

ITA 348/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sourav Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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