GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 28(iv) of the Act by way of crediting the net consideration in the audited accounts and claiming the credit of TDS on the 'grossed up' amount. The certificates of GRSE totalled to Rs. 28,126,740 whereas the Assessee has accounted for only Rs. 24,393,588 in the audited profit and loss accounts. Therefore the difference

SHREE SHIROMANI PROJECT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.106/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. Ltd. ...……………………....………....Appellant C/O Advocate Amit Agarwal, 50D, Mukta Ram Babu Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aabcv0376L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 29, 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 21.03.2023 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Dated 21St March, 2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant In Liminie Without Dealing With The Merits Of The Case & By Not Passing Order On The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Appellant Assessee Company Against The Impugned Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act

151 of the Act and thus the resultant reassessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. 3. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in dismissing the Appeal of the Appellant Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIVEK GUPTA, KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings discussed in detailed the facts qua the said loans. The Ld. CIT(A) noted in para 6.2.2 that the AO has added these loans to the income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. RAJA TRANSPORT, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

151 from sub-contractors and deposit those in jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax office which has not been done in the case under consideration as under. Accordingly, the ld AO proceeded to make disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 4,98,86,342/- for violation of section 194C

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 could be given if the proof was asked for by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but not in case where the assessee had placed the proof on record without filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, documents placed on record with

I.T.O WD - 2(2),BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. NATRAJ UNEMPLOYED ENGINEERS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BURDWAN

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

TDS certificates cannot be a reason good enough to believe that income has escaped assessment and therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings on this ground is not valid. In the instant case, the ld. AO has formed his belief basing on the existing materials which were provided by the assessee in the course of the original assessment proceedings

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 written off' of Rs. 73,143/­, 'Travelling & Conveyance' of Rs.13,33,954/­ and 'Personal expenses' of Rs.56,000/­. 6. Having carefully considered the matter, I find that the Ld. A.O was unjustified in taking a view that the business of the assessee had not commenced, when he himself has recorded about the agreement entered by the appellant with

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JATINDRA NATH GHOSH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

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

TDS on the supply of materials and/or reimbursement of expenses as per provision of section 40(1)(ia) of the Act. Jatindra Nath Ghosh 6 5.5. I have gone through the assessment order passed by the A. O. and also have carefully considered the submissions and supporting vouchers made by the appellant, I find that there is sufficient force

ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

section 10(2) (xv), it is not necessary that the primary motive in incurring it has to be directly to earn income thereby (Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC). The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kalyayanji Mavji & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC), has observed (on page 53) that on accepted commercial practice and trading

ITO, WARD-2(3), DURGAPUR, KOLKATA vs. M/S HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Height Insurance Ward-2(3), R/No.10/21, Services Ltd., Room 7Th Floor, Aayakar No.319,3Rd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Kamalaya Centre, 156A, Chowringhee Square, Lenin Sarani, Kolakta-13 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacch 0943 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2016 In Case No. 188/Cit(A)-14/Wd-1(1)/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Solitary Grievance Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive Section 37 R.W 40(A)(Ia) Disallowances / Addition Of ₹66,18,00,000/- Pertaining To Assessee’S Service Charges Paid To M/S Golden Trust Financial Services (Gtfs) Hereafter For Having Acted As Its Agent. It’S Next Two Averments Are That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Examining Assessee’S Exclusive Method Of Accounting In Service Tax Receivable On Output Services As Against Inclusive Method Of Service Tax

section 10(2) (xv), it is not necessary that the primary motive in incurring it has to be directly to earn income thereby (Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC). ITA No.2266/Kol/2016 A.Y.2011-12 ITO Wd-2(3) Kol. Vs. M/s Height Insurance Services Ltd. Page 14 The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kalyayanji Mavji

MD EHRAR KHAN,ASANSOL vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS u/s. 194C of the Act thereby invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee before us filed complete details of payment of truck hire charges amounting to Rs.6,57,22,280/- out of which the parties to whom the payments below Rs.50,000/- per annum

V.N.G.MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld.Ao. 4. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Entire Administrative Expense Amounting To Rs.2,99,255/- While Passing The Assessment Order. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld.Ao. 5. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Delete All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.

151, 153." M/s. VNG Mercantile P.Ltd We are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in applying provision of section 40(a)(ia) in disallowing payment of a sum of Rs.4,30,386/- to a contractor without deducting TDS

SHELTER INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. A.O. CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.421/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shelter Infra Projects Ltd…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Dn-1 Sector V Eternity Building, Sector V, Salt Lake Sech Bhavan, Kolkata – 700091. [Pan: Aabcc2304F] Vs. A.O, Circle-11(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 10, 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 26.12.2023 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. This Is Second Round Of Appeal Before Us. Earlier, The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.10.2018 Had Remanded The Matter To The File Of The Assessing Officer For De Novo Assessment. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019 Made The Impugned Additions Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.23,98,20,955/-. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Additions So Made By The Assessing Officer Vide

section 201 of the Act certifying the aforesaid payment to M/s Sarda Vanijya (P) Ltd. by the assessee and TDS was duly deducted thereupon and further that the payee had duly taken into consideration the aforesaid payments in its return of income. The ld. counsel has also invited our attention to pages 87 & 88 of the paper-book to submit

BISWANATH AGARWALA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1843/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

151/-, Rs.500/- etc. which comes to Rs.39,964/- which was disallowed by the AO u/s. 37 of the Act. We note that similar claim made by the assessee was allowed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Bata India Ltd. 201 ITR 2 Biswanath Agarwala, AY 2013-14 884 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble High Court

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

TDS officer to look into the violations, if any, on the same and hence on that ground also, no disallowance of expenditure could be appreciated. We find that the Learned AO had made the entire addition based on surmises and conjectures and made on adhoc basis . It is well founded proposition that what is apparent is real and the allegation

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

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

151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim

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

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

151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim

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

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

151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim