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]

17. The examination of the aforesaid contentions show that, Section 234E has come into force on 1.7.2012. Therefore, one may at the first blush say that, since Section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered the statement/s of TDS

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]

17. The examination of the aforesaid contentions show that, Section 234E has come into force on 1.7.2012. Therefore, one may at the first blush say that, since Section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered the statement/s of TDS

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]

17. The examination of the aforesaid contentions show that, Section 234E has come into force on 1.7.2012. Therefore, one may at the first blush say that, since Section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered the statement/s of TDS

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]

17. The examination of the aforesaid contentions show that, Section 234E has come into force on 1.7.2012. Therefore, one may at the first blush say that, since Section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered the statement/s of TDS

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]

17. The examination of the aforesaid contentions show that, Section 234E has come into force on 1.7.2012. Therefore, one may at the first blush say that, since Section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered the statement/s of TDS

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]

17. The examination of the aforesaid contentions show that, Section 234E has come into force on 1.7.2012. Therefore, one may at the first blush say that, since Section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered the statement/s of TDS

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]

17. The examination of the aforesaid contentions show that, Section 234E has come into force on 1.7.2012. Therefore, one may at the first blush say that, since Section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered the statement/s of TDS

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]

17. The examination of the aforesaid contentions show that, Section 234E has come into force on 1.7.2012. Therefore, one may at the first blush say that, since Section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered the statement/s of TDS

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

TDS was required to be made. The Ld. AO added the amount\nas the shares of each co-owner was not specified in the agreement. It is\nstated that it is common law that the shares are not specified, all are\nentitled to equal share of the property and it has been requested that\nthe assessee inadvertently omitted to include

ACIT, CIR-2, (TDS), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. P S GROUP REALTY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

17(2)(iv) of the Act in the hands of said employee. The AO invoked the provisions of section 192 and held that the assessee is liable to deduct TDS

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

17\nITA No.: 974, 975 & 2237/KOL/2024\n Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14\nRaiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.\ntherefore, no TDS was required to be made. The Ld. AO added the amount\nas the shares of each co-owner was not specified in the agreement. It is\nstated that it is common law that the shares are not specified

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 as applicable u/s. 192 of the Act. According to him, calculation of perquisite is done as per Section 17

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

17 of 22 I.T.A. Nos.: 1925 & 1947/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 N C Shaw and Co Beverages Private Limited. section 194H of the Act on incentive paid to retailers/distributers will be out of place. • that there were not provisions to deduct tax at source on discount/incentives under Act under the captioned year and the provisions of section 194R were much

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

17 of 22 I.T.A. Nos.: 1925 & 1947/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 N C Shaw and Co Beverages Private Limited. section 194H of the Act on incentive paid to retailers/distributers will be out of place. • that there were not provisions to deduct tax at source on discount/incentives under Act under the captioned year and the provisions of section 194R were much

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (TDS) CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194H of the Act. 8.2 However the present assessee has modified the agreement with its distributors and its relevant clauses of the agreement with M/s Rajsikha Communication, one of the distributors, for prepaid business model w.e.f. 21st April 2009 on sample basis are reproduced below:- “2. APPOINTMENT ITA No.1499-1502, 1537-1540/Kol/2015 & 136-137 & 232-233/Kol/2016 Vodafone East

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194H of the Act. 8.2 However the present assessee has modified the agreement with its distributors and its relevant clauses of the agreement with M/s Rajsikha Communication, one of the distributors, for prepaid business model w.e.f. 21st April 2009 on sample basis are reproduced below:- “2. APPOINTMENT ITA No.1499-1502, 1537-1540/Kol/2015 & 136-137 & 232-233/Kol/2016 Vodafone East

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194H of the Act. 8.2 However the present assessee has modified the agreement with its distributors and its relevant clauses of the agreement with M/s Rajsikha Communication, one of the distributors, for prepaid business model w.e.f. 21st April 2009 on sample basis are reproduced below:- “2. APPOINTMENT ITA No.1499-1502, 1537-1540/Kol/2015 & 136-137 & 232-233/Kol/2016 Vodafone East

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE EAST LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194H of the Act. 8.2 However the present assessee has modified the agreement with its distributors and its relevant clauses of the agreement with M/s Rajsikha Communication, one of the distributors, for prepaid business model w.e.f. 21st April 2009 on sample basis are reproduced below:- “2. APPOINTMENT ITA No.1499-1502, 1537-1540/Kol/2015 & 136-137 & 232-233/Kol/2016 Vodafone East