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

182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.” In view of above the ld. AR prayed that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable to the present case and therefore there

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE EAST LTD.), KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.” In view of above the ld. AR prayed that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable to the present case and therefore there

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

182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.” In view of above the ld. AR prayed that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable to the present case and therefore there

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

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.” In view of above the ld. AR prayed that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable to the present case and therefore there

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE SOUTH LTD.), KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.” In view of above the ld. AR prayed that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable to the present case and therefore there

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

182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.” In view of above the ld. AR prayed that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable to the present case and therefore there

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

182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.” In view of above the ld. AR prayed that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable to the present case and therefore there

VODAFONE SOUTH 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

182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.” In view of above the ld. AR prayed that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable to the present case and therefore there

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

182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.” In view of above the ld. AR prayed that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable to the present case and therefore there

VODAFONE SOUTH 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

182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.” In view of above the ld. AR prayed that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable to the present case and therefore there

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

182 of the Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, the obligation to deduct tax at source in terms of section 194- H arises when the legal relationship of principal-agent is established. It is necessary to clarify this position, as in day-to-day life, the expression 'agency' is used to include a vast number of relationships, which are strictly, not relationships

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

182 of the Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, the obligation to deduct tax at source in terms of section 194- H arises when the legal relationship of principal-agent is established. It is necessary to clarify this position, as in day-to-day life, the expression 'agency' is used to include a vast number of relationships, which are strictly, not relationships

M/S. EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NADIA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini] I.T.A. No. 278/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13

182/- and denying credit of tax deducted at source amounting to Rs.22,950/-; respectively. The Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 322/Kol/2016 for the very assessment year 2011- 12 seeks to revive cash and trade discounts disallowance of Rs.1,00,50,239/- and Rs.1,54,82,000/-; respectively. Its further case is that the same also attracts Section

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rjesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 199 of the Act in clear terms provides that, any deduction of tax and payment thereof to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made. In other words, TDS is treated as the tax paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose

ITO (IT), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2249/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O. (International Taxation), -Vs.- M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 4975 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

section 9(2) of the Act, the Karnataka High Court in the case ofJindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT ( TDS) [2010] 321 ITR 31/[2009] 182

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

TDS under section 194J- Held, yes [Para 6] in favour of assessee”. c) DCIT vs Delhi Transco Ltd reported in (2014) 52 taxmann.com 261 (Delhi – “This finding has been followed by the ITAT in ITA No. 3965/ Del/2011 in the case of assessee for Assessment Year 2006-07. Apart from the finding of tribunal recorded in the assessee

ITO, WD - 41(4). NADIA, NADIA vs. MD. ABUTALEB SURAHABALI KHAN, NADIA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1384/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12) Ito, Ward-41(4), Nadia, Vs. Md. Abutaleb Surahabali Khan, Nediar Para, Ananta Hari Mitra Tehatta Thakur Para Road, Po-Krishnanagar, Dist- P.O.Tehatta-741 160 Nadia, Pin-741 101(Wb) District-Nadia (W.B) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Anrpk 7592 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Sri Nicholas Murmu, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-2012, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata In Appeal No.461/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Wd-41(4)/Nadia/2014- 15, Dated 08.03.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.03.2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant A.Y.2011-2012 On 28.03.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,80,555/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Framed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Making Various Additions. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Ao, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Who Has Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Observing The Followings :-

TDS was not required to be deducted for such payment u/s.40(a)(ia)". The AO has not said as to how the section 40(a)(ia) was violated by the assessee. Thus I find force in the appellant's submissions and the addition is deleted. The AO has estimated the NP at 8% of gross receipts

ITO, WARD - 2(3), ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. RELIABLE TRANSPORT AGENCY, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

182/- noticed that the assessee has made payments in excess of Rs.50,000/- to each of the truck without deduction of TDS in violation of the provisions of section