M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

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

TDS in accordance with the provisions of Section 194H of the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,98,05,460/- is upheld. Consequently, these grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.” 3.3. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

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

TDS in accordance with the provisions of Section 194H of the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,98,05,460/- is upheld. Consequently, these grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.” 3.3. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

MOHAMMED AHMED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Mohammed Ahmed V/S. Acit, Circle-29, 3, 10/1/1A, Topsia Road Govt. Place (West), (South), Kolkata – 700 046 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan No.Acxpa 6297 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not appropriate. Assessee has also cited case law in support of its claim as under:- a) CIT v. John 181 ITR 1 (Kar) b) CIT v. Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 (Del) c) Tarulata vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) It was also submitted that job work done by assessee for the aforesaid

M/S CAPITAL TOURS(INDIA) PVT. LTD ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.507/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Capital Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd..............................………...…..…Appellant 1, J Embassy Building, 4, Shakepeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700 071. [Pan: Aabcc2821K] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 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 07.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘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 Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-17, Kolkata U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Wrong In The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) - 17, Kolkata Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee'S Contribution For

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer's liability is to be paid

SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta) was also filed in which reliance has been placed upon the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (supra) and it has been held that the Tribunal took note of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Pr. CIT (Central

M/S. RSD NATURAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD. ,2015-16 vs. DCIT,CIR-9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 794/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Rsd Natural Resources Private Ltd.,.….Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aagcr3203B] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…….Respondent Circle-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Room No. 5/25, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 2Nd, 2024 O R D E R

164/-, which has been added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. In other words, ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee has paid clearing charges to various entities and on such charges, it has not deducted TDS under section 194C of the Income

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

2. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and erred in allowing the expenditure of Rs.1,74,19,164/- under the head Foreign Currency Convertible Bond being revenue in nature although the addition was rightly made by the A.O. being the said expenditure as Capital in nature. “ 49. This

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MEGA RESOURCES LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same, which was confirmed by the CIT(A), which came to be set aside by the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal by impugned order deleted the said disallowance of Rs.21,08,918/-, which was given on advance and, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

2. That an agreement subsisted between TATA Steel Ltd. (TSL) and the appellant (TMILL) to the effect that TMILL was entitled .to receive 'stipulated margin money' on the basis of projected volume of tonnage' 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case (supra), the amount of 1.57 crores debited in the Profit and Loss Account was a mere

RADHARAMAN JEW TRUST FUND,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A No. 1632/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

TDS of Rs.1,71,834/-. There is no difference in the total income as declared by the assessee and the total income as determined in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The increased tax liability is because of the AO’s action in concluding that the case of the assessee falls within the status

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

TDS was deducted and deposited in accordance with law. 6.2.12. All the above discussions established the fact that the loans from the said five companies were given from the creditors disclosed bank accounts, and were received in the disclosed bank account of the Appellant. These loans were duly reflected in the assessee`s books of account and the said loans

M/S PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS obligations on the subject mentioned payments and the same has been accepted by the department. He also referred to the summary of emails from Pages 333 to 378 28 29 Philips India Ltd.. A.Yr.2012-13 and further emails which are enclosed in Exhibit II from pages 800 to 854 of Paper Book. He also referred