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

150 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) wherein it was held that the incentive given to retail dealers would not fall under the category of commission and accordingly the provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable. It may not be out of place that the Assessee in the present case was in similar business as the Appellant. The relevant

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

150 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) wherein it was held that the incentive given to retail dealers would not fall under the category of commission and accordingly the provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable. It may not be out of place that the Assessee in the present case was in similar business as the Appellant. The 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

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

SHIV TRANSPORT & TRAVELS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-56(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 889/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 2(22)(e) are applicable in the case of a firm only for the reason that substantial shareholders in the assessee firm also hold substantial stake in the company which made the loan or advance to the assessee firm. The facts regarding the substantial interest of the common partners/shareholders in the company which advanced

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

150,982,080/- respectively along with TDS credit appearing in Form No. 26AS of the appellant which aggregates to Rs. 2,49,06,53,535/- has been claimed by the appellant in return of income. B. Prayer 1.0.In view of the above mentioned discussion, it is humbly submitted that necessary direction may please be given to Ld. ADIT to grant

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

150,982,080/- respectively along with TDS credit appearing in Form No. 26AS of the appellant which aggregates to Rs. 2,49,06,53,535/- has been claimed by the appellant in return of income. B. Prayer 1.0.In view of the above mentioned discussion, it is humbly submitted that necessary direction may please be given to Ld. ADIT to grant

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

150-200 bps. On these facts therefore I find that the TPO’s action of adopting LIBOR at the rate of 510 bps was wholly inappropriate and unjustified. Based on the data available before me, I direct the Ld. AO/TPO to adopt the LIBOR (US) for the relevant FY 2008-09 at 113 bps. 5. In view of the above

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

150-200 bps. On these facts therefore I find that the TPO’s action of adopting LIBOR at the rate of 510 bps was wholly inappropriate and unjustified. Based on the data available before me, I direct the Ld. AO/TPO to adopt the LIBOR (US) for the relevant FY 2008-09 at 113 bps. 5. In view of the above

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

150-200 bps. On these facts therefore I find that the TPO’s action of adopting LIBOR at the rate of 510 bps was wholly inappropriate and unjustified. Based on the data available before me, I direct the Ld. AO/TPO to adopt the LIBOR (US) for the relevant FY 2008-09 at 113 bps. 5. In view of the above

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]

TDS obligations with regard to commission payments made to Airports 29 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 Authority of India. We direct the Learned AO accordingly. Hence the Ground No. 10 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Disallowance on account of advance written off – Rs. 2,01,50,000/- The assessee, provided

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]

TDS obligations with regard to commission payments made to Airports 29 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 Authority of India. We direct the Learned AO accordingly. Hence the Ground No. 10 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Disallowance on account of advance written off – Rs. 2,01,50,000/- The assessee, provided

SRI SUTANU MAHANTY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-53, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

150/- and failed to deduct TDS on the balance payment of Rs.1,32,25,980/-. Therefore, The AO disallowed the same on account of non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of assessee. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before

TRIMEX FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

150 - Rs.23) escapes assessment in respect of 8000 shares amounting to Rs.10,16,00,000/-. Thus, the Ld. Pr. CIT taking note of this fact had issued notice to the assessee for exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act which decision has been assailed before us. 5. According to ld. AR, the premise on which

M/S JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS details. He made the following additions:- Section Sl. Name of the Party Amount as per 26AS No. 1. 206CE Tata Metaliks DI Rs.8,79,718/- Pipes Limited 2. 194J HEG Ltd. Rs. 55,150

DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that or Revenue is dismissed

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

150/- after TDS deduction. No license is required to render the supervisory services. Only gate pass is issued by the Authority concern which needs to be submitted back. TDS has been paid @ 2% because it is a works contract. The AO has not made any effort to verify the transactions. However, CIT(A) has upheld the decision

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-33(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KWALITY CONSTRUTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

2) being not applicable in this case, the disallowance of Rs.2,04,79,685/- made by the AO by invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby deleted.” 5. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- “ Ld. CIT(A) erred in fact and in law, in deleting the addition of Rs.2

SITANGSHU DAS,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 26(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

2\nΙ.Τ.Α. No.: 2656/KOL/2024\n Assessment Year: 2016-17\nSitangshu Das.\n2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\n“1) Payment of Wages wrongly considered as Contractor Payment of\nRs.15,21,238/- 30% taxed: That on the facts and in the circumstances of\nthe case, the assessing officer/appellate authority went

M/S VARRSANA ISPAT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE CIT, TDS KOLKATA-24, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS Wd-59(4))/CIT(A)-24 Kol. Page 2 respectively, involving proceedings u/s201(1) r.w. Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It appears at the outset that the assessee’s instant four appeal(s) challenge correctness of both the lower authorities identical action raising