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').

TDS was less than 10% of the total tax liability. Thereafter, on 06.06.2022, assessee moved a rectification application and one of the point of its application was that the assessee is entitled to substantial MAT credit brought forward from earlier years. The details of such MAT credit of Rs.33,08,57,877/- is mentioned below: 9. On going through

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

section 9(2) of the Act does not change the existing law relating to non- deduction of TDS on payment of commission to overseas commission agents having no place of business or PE in India. This issue has been dealt in by various decisions of Appellate Courts including those cited herein above. Reference is made to the recent judgment

WEST-BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 The West Bengal Power Development Dcit, Circle-4(2), Corporation Limited Kolkata Bidyut Unnayan Bhaban, Plot No. Vs. 3/C, Block La, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700098. Pan: Aabct 3027 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anuj Musaddi, Ca & Shri Rishav Narendra, Ar Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.01.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Upholding Additions/Disallowances Made By The Ld. Ao Under The Provisions Of The Act In The Order Under Section 143(3)/ 263 Of The Act. 1(B). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Considering The Submission Dated 16 August 2018 Filed By The Appellant Before The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata & Passing The Order Stating That The Appellant Has Not Complied With The Notices Of Hearing, Thereby Tendering The Order Unjust & Illegal: 2(A). Without Prejudice To Ground No. 1(B) Above, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Grossly Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs 21,30,15,951 Made By The Ld. Ao Under Section 32(1) Of The Act On Account Of Non-Production Of Documentary Evidences For Capitalization Of Capital Spares, Office Equipment Or Building Township. 2(B). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals)/ Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Not Considering That The Aforesaid

section 43B of the Act 7. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1(b) above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/Ld. AO grossly erred both in fact and law in disallowing Rs.51,02,550 towards prior period adjustments 8. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1(b) above

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICKE GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey , Jm &

section 40(a)(i) is not applicable in this case for commission paid. I, therefore, direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs.23,87,696/-." 4. Needless to say, the CIT(A) has adopted the very analogy in assessment year 2010-11 as well. The Revenue's case before us is that the assessee had failed to place

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICK GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 40(a)(i) is not applicable in this case for commission paid. I, therefore, direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs.23,87,696/-.” 4. Needless to say, the CIT(A) has adopted the very analogy in assessment year 2010-11 as well. The Revenue’s case before us is that the assessee had failed to place

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICK GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 40(a)(i) is not applicable in this case for commission paid. I, therefore, direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs.23,87,696/-.” 4. Needless to say, the CIT(A) has adopted the very analogy in assessment year 2010-11 as well. The Revenue’s case before us is that the assessee had failed to place

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

TDS. The same should be restricted to 30% of the disallowance i.e. 4,86,811/- in view of the recent amendment in section 40(a)(ia). The ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that the said amendment is curative in nature and comes into rescue whenever the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is warranted. Therefore, the said amendment

ITO, WD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S ASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of revenue

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1127,1128,1129 &1130/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09,2009-10,2010-11, 2011-12 ) Ito Ward-1(1), Aayakar Vs. M/S Associated Contractors, Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Vivekananda Mini Market, Matigara,Siliguri-Pin- Hill Cart Road, 734010 Siliguri "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffa 1590 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Dutta, Jcit,Sr.Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Four Appeals, Cited Above, Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 2012, Are Directed Against Orders Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalpaiguri, In Appeal Nos.89,90,91&92/Cit(A)/Slg/2013- 2014, All Dated 11.03.2014, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section.148/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 12.12.2013, 12.12.2013, 12.12.2013 & 12.12.2013, Respectively.

section 7(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from the date next to the date of the Award till payment.” Further the ld. AR relied on the following judgments :- i) DSL Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Mrs. N.C.Chandratre, ITO & Ors., (2013) 258 CTR (Bom) 155 : TDS

ITO, WD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S ASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of revenue

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1127,1128,1129 &1130/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09,2009-10,2010-11, 2011-12 ) Ito Ward-1(1), Aayakar Vs. M/S Associated Contractors, Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Vivekananda Mini Market, Matigara,Siliguri-Pin- Hill Cart Road, 734010 Siliguri "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffa 1590 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Dutta, Jcit,Sr.Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Four Appeals, Cited Above, Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 2012, Are Directed Against Orders Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalpaiguri, In Appeal Nos.89,90,91&92/Cit(A)/Slg/2013- 2014, All Dated 11.03.2014, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section.148/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 12.12.2013, 12.12.2013, 12.12.2013 & 12.12.2013, Respectively.

section 7(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from the date next to the date of the Award till payment.” Further the ld. AR relied on the following judgments :- i) DSL Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Mrs. N.C.Chandratre, ITO & Ors., (2013) 258 CTR (Bom) 155 : TDS

ITO, WD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S ASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of revenue

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1127,1128,1129 &1130/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09,2009-10,2010-11, 2011-12 ) Ito Ward-1(1), Aayakar Vs. M/S Associated Contractors, Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Vivekananda Mini Market, Matigara,Siliguri-Pin- Hill Cart Road, 734010 Siliguri "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffa 1590 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Dutta, Jcit,Sr.Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Four Appeals, Cited Above, Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 2012, Are Directed Against Orders Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalpaiguri, In Appeal Nos.89,90,91&92/Cit(A)/Slg/2013- 2014, All Dated 11.03.2014, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section.148/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 12.12.2013, 12.12.2013, 12.12.2013 & 12.12.2013, Respectively.

section 7(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from the date next to the date of the Award till payment.” Further the ld. AR relied on the following judgments :- i) DSL Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Mrs. N.C.Chandratre, ITO & Ors., (2013) 258 CTR (Bom) 155 : TDS

ITO, WD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S ASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of revenue

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1127,1128,1129 &1130/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09,2009-10,2010-11, 2011-12 ) Ito Ward-1(1), Aayakar Vs. M/S Associated Contractors, Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Vivekananda Mini Market, Matigara,Siliguri-Pin- Hill Cart Road, 734010 Siliguri "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffa 1590 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Dutta, Jcit,Sr.Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Four Appeals, Cited Above, Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 2012, Are Directed Against Orders Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalpaiguri, In Appeal Nos.89,90,91&92/Cit(A)/Slg/2013- 2014, All Dated 11.03.2014, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section.148/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 12.12.2013, 12.12.2013, 12.12.2013 & 12.12.2013, Respectively.

section 7(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from the date next to the date of the Award till payment.” Further the ld. AR relied on the following judgments :- i) DSL Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Mrs. N.C.Chandratre, ITO & Ors., (2013) 258 CTR (Bom) 155 : TDS

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

TDS. He had invoked section 40a(ia) of the Act to disallow the assessee’s claim of Rs. 67,48,288/- in assessment order. The CIT(A) accepts assessee’s arguments as follows: 23 A.Yr. 2009-10 Suffice to say, we notice that at the outset that this issue is covered in assessee’s favour from preceding assessment years

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

TDS. He had invoked section 40a(ia) of the Act to disallow the assessee’s claim of Rs. 67,48,288/- in assessment order. The CIT(A) accepts assessee’s arguments as follows: 23 A.Yr. 2009-10 Suffice to say, we notice that at the outset that this issue is covered in assessee’s favour from preceding assessment years

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers V/S. Acit, Circle-2(2), Pvt.Ltd., Block-Ep, Plot-Y-14, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-91 Kokata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 9181 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata’S Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2017, Involving Proceedings Section 144C R.W. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Assessee Appellant’S First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenge Correctness Of Transfer Price Adjustment Amounting To ₹345,51,562/- In Course Of Assessment As Pertaining To Its International Transactions With Its Overseas Associate Enterprise (Ae). This Assessee Is A Company Providing Consultancy Including Tax & Regulatory Services. It Filed Its Return On 30.11.2012 Stating Total Income Of ₹51,62,16,310/-. This Followed Its Revised Return Dated 31.03.2014 Reducing Its Taxable Income To ₹49,87,12,700/-. The Assessing Officer Took Up Scrutiny. He Came Across

Section G of the study on search criteria is to be seen. The asses se chooses NACE Codes (NACE (Nomenclature of Economic Activities) is the European statistical classification of economic activities. NACE groups organizations according to their business activities. Statistics produced on the basis of NACE are comparable at European level and, in general, at world level in line with

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

section 44E or assume diverse other forms. But there must be some artifice or device enabling the assessee to avoid payment of tax on which is really and in truth his income. If the assessee parts with his income producing asset, so that the right to receive income arising from the asset which therefore belonged to the assessee is transferred

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NARIMAN FINVEST (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and that of assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

155 (Punjab & Haryana). The relevant extract is reproduced as under : “Section 37 provides that any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36) and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall

ASHA REAL ESTATES AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Asha Real Estates & V/S. Income Tax Officer, Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-9(1), Kolkata Roomno.210, 2Nd Floor, 163, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaeca 4266 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rajiv Kumar Mahajan, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 24-08-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16 Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.08.2016, Passed In Case No.594/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2015-16/W-991), Upholding The Assessing Officer’S Action Adding An Amount Of ₹14,92,918/- As Representing Under Valuation Of Sale Consideration & Making U/S 40(A)(Ia) Disallowance ₹44,00,968/-; Respectively In Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2014 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

section 194C of the Act so as to invite any TDS deduction. The Assessing Officer quoted one of such payment to Mr. Jalal Uddin Mondal’s case involving labour charges of ₹1,54,155

ITO,WARD-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SYSTEM INCORPORATE(P)LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmcd, Am]

TDS certificate have already been shown and included in the gross receipts of the earlier years of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue has raised Ground No.l before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the learned DR, who relied on the order of the AO. In the light of the findings

EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

155 of the paper book to show as to how the claim under section 35(2AB) was made by the assessee. He contended that the claim of the assessee for the deduction under section 35(2AB) 15 A.Y. 2012-2013 Eveready Industries India Limited thus was allowed by the Assessing Officer after making the necessary enquiry and there