M/S. SHREE HANUMAN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

7 M/s.Shree Hanuman Sugar & Industries Limited under 115JA was a clear mistake in the order of the A.O as he was duty bound to compute tax as per the provision laid down u/s. 115JA of the Act. Considering above the ground no 1 & 2 taken by the appellant is dismissed.” 11. The present appeal filed questioning the action

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]

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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]

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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]

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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]

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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]

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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]

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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]

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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]

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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]

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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

TDS was actually made and paid to the credit of Central\nGovernment.\n5. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or\ndelete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final\ndisposal of this appeal.\"\nWe shall first take up the appeal in ITA No. 974/KOL/2024 for\nadjudication.\n3. Brief facts of the case are that

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-11(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

154 of the Act, assessee had specifically raised the issue in para 6 and, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that assessee had not raised this issue. As far as the calculation of interest u/s. 244A of the Act is concerned, he stated that this refund is arising out of TDS credit available with the assessee. He stated that

BIJNI DOOARS TEA COMPANY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-2, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bijni Dooars Tea Company Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kolkata-2, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1, Kolkata. Vs. Shantiniketan, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aabcb1013E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

7 Bijni Dooars Tea Co. Ltd., AY 2018-19 7.2. From the above noted observation of Ld. Pr. CIT, it is evident that he has recognised that there is a mistake which has occurred in filing the return by the assessee. Even assessee has admitted that it has wrongly adjusted the long term capital loss of Rs.13,07,100/- twice

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

TDS was actually made and paid to the credit of Central\nGovernment.\n5. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or\ndelete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final\ndisposal of this appeal.\"\nWe shall first take up the appeal in ITA No. 974/KOL/2024 for\nadjudication.\n3. Brief facts of the case are that

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS was actually made and paid to the credit of Central Government. 5. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” A. We shall first take up the appeal in ITA No. 974/KOL/2024 for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that

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

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

BOC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

TDS] in terms of provisions of section 40(a(ia) of the Act for which show cause notice was issued to the assessee. In response to the show cause notice the assessee replied that this amount represents advances made for import of capital goods, which is outstanding as on 31-03-2007. Such advances were made towards purchase/import of capital

ABHISHEK KANORIA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WARD 3(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 843/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Abhishek Kanoria,……………………...………Appellant 2, Mayurbhanj Road, Mominpur, Kolkata-700023, West Bengal [Pan:Afnpk5326F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………….…………...Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 17, 2025 O R D E R

section 154. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) opined that this issue cannot be adjudicated upon in the present appeal, and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised the following issues:- (1) For that the adjustment made in the order u/s 154/143(1) of the Income