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)

156, we notice that DDT is a tax payable on distribution of profits and it is in no way connected to the determination of total income. Though, ld. CIT, DR has pointed out that the computation sheet annexed to the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) contains details pertaining to 21 Bijni Dooars

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

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 28 of the Act. The assessee in the instant case had written off the TDS portion due to non-availability of the same and hence it becomes a trading loss u.s 28 of the Act as to that extent, it had neither received the money nor the TDS certificate. Hence it becomes a trading loss allowable

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 28 of the Act. The assessee in the instant case had written off the TDS portion due to non-availability of the same and hence it becomes a trading loss u.s 28 of the Act as to that extent, it had neither received the money nor the TDS certificate. Hence it becomes a trading loss allowable

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

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. THAT on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC has grossly erred in law and not justified by confirming the disallowance of Law Charges of Rs.4,99,738/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I. T. Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income without considering

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. THAT on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC has grossly erred in law and not justified by confirming the disallowance of Law Charges of Rs.4,99,738/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I. T. Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income without considering

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

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. THAT on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC has grossly erred in law and not justified by confirming the disallowance of Law Charges of Rs.4,99,738/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I. T. Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income without considering

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

156 of the Act have not been served upon the appellant. Ground 3: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated April 29, 2022 passed by the Learned AO is invalid since it does not contain a Document Identification Number (‘DIN’) and has also not been digitally signed. Ground 4(a): That

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

156 of the Act have not been served upon the appellant. Ground 3: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated April 29, 2022 passed by the Learned AO is invalid since it does not contain a Document Identification Number (‘DIN’) and has also not been digitally signed. Ground 4(a): That

M/S. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years

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

156 ITD 337 (Kolkata Trib) ; Dishnet Wireless Ltd vs DCIT in ITA Nos. 320 to 329/Mad/2014 dated 20.7.2015 (Chennai Trib) Bharti Hexacom Ltd vs ITO TDS in ITA No. 656/JP/2010 dated 12.6.2015 (Jaipur Trib) He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT TDS Bangalore vs Vodafone South ltd reported

PARAMARTH SADHAK SANGH ,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(E) CIR -2/NOW ITO(EXEM), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Paramarth Sadhak Sangh……..………………....…………..……………...……..….…….........Appellant P-113, New Raipur Road (E) Kolkata – 700 084 [Pan : Aaatp 4767 F] Vs. Adit (E), Circle-2/ Now I.T.O. (Exem), Ward-14, Kolkata….……………............Respondent

156 of the Act. Except intimation, no other order is contemplated under section 143(l)( a). There is a distinction between an order of assessment and a notice of demand. Under section 246 also, a clear distinction is made between an intimation and an order of assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot, under section 143(1)(a), change the status

SUBHAJIT KR. GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XXV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12

TDS of Rs.9,56,413/- and credit of seized cash of Rs.2,35,600/- as payment of advance tax. The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the appellant as self-assessment tax. Thus, as per the return of income there was claim of refund of Rs.24/-. However, on perusal of the declaration petition dated 28.03.2011 filed before

ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CALCUTTA AHMEDABAD CARRIERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2006-07 I.T.O., Ward-13(1) -Versus- M/S Calcutta Ahmedabad Kolkata Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata (Pan:Aaccc 2260 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl Cit For The Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate

156,729/- Lorry /hire charges - 2 12,798,860/- 43,955,589/- Tax deducted 26,399,838/- No TDS deducted 17,555,751/- Further details on the same page presented branch wise confirm the lorry hire charges as aggregated above of Rs.4,39,55,589/ - against two heads numbered as lorry hire charges-I and lorry hire charges-2 forming

STATE BANK OF INDIA NALIKUL BRANCH ,NALIKUL vs. INCOME TAX TDS WARD 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

section 201 and CIT(A) upheld the previous order just on written submission. 9. Without prejudice, TDS officer completed the assessment citing the order of apex court without appreciating the circumstances and the fact of the matter. 10. That the Notice U/s 156

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

TDS. 7.For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the A.O. in in making estimated disallowance on account of labour charges, supervision charges, tyre charges and repairs and maintenance charges totaling to Rs.66,89,134/- u/s 40(a)(ia) as under- (a)Labour Charges: Rs. 16,21,585/- (b)Supervision Charges

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision

AVISHI PROJECTS LLP ,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE. , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

156, it was observed that true guide for a Court to exercise the discretion under section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. (g) In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless want of bona fides of such in action or negligence