GPT MARECOM (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2 , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

186/- (paid to M/s. GPT Infraproject Ltd.) which is reflected in the P&L Account, however, assessee failed to deduct any TDS on it, it should have been deducted as per law. Therefore, according to the Ld. Pr. CIT as per provision of section

RUNGTA MINES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

186 (Bom)] (iii) The amendment in the scheme of Section 37(1), which has been introduced with effect from 1st April 2015, cannot be construed as to disadvantage to the assessee in the period prior to this amendment. This disabling provision, as set out in Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), refers only to such corporate social responsibility expenses

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

TDS and AO has failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to demonstrate that these documents/evidences are false. Therefore, addition made by the assessing officer needs to be deleted and accordingly we delete the addition of Rs. 5.42 Crores. For the sake of academic discussion, we also note that aforesaid two projects are infrastructure projects specified u/s 80IA

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

TDS and AO has failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to demonstrate that these documents/evidences are false. Therefore, addition made by the assessing officer needs to be deleted and accordingly we delete the addition of Rs. 5.42 Crores. For the sake of academic discussion, we also note that aforesaid two projects are infrastructure projects specified u/s 80IA

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JATINDRA NATH GHOSH, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 14A is not applicable to the issue on hand. The AO by placing reliance on the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Chem Invest Ltd. vs ITO determined the expenses to be disallowed in spite of having no exempt income earned by invoking Rule 8D(2) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and Rs. 30,186/- was added

M/S. MANAKSIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(3) (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 194C of the Act is not applicable to sale of customized products which are produced using material purchased form a person other than the buyer of goods. The appellant has also submitted copy of the order placed by the appellant for supply of the equipment in question. 5.2 The submissions of the appellant’s contention is that the transaction

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 194C of the Act is not applicable to sale of customized products which are produced using material purchased form a person other than the buyer of goods. The appellant has also submitted copy of the order placed by the appellant for supply of the equipment in question. 5.2 The submissions of the appellant’s contention is that the transaction

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

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

TDS certificate u/s. 195(1) of the Act. We find no merit in the instant argument. The fact remains that there is no material on record indicating the assessee’s payees to have rendered any service in India so as to be assessable in India. Hon'ble ITA No.2086-2088/Kol/2016 AYs 09-10 to 11-12 ACIT

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

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

TDS certificate u/s. 195(1) of the Act. We find no merit in the instant argument. The fact remains that there is no material on record indicating the assessee’s payees to have rendered any service in India so as to be assessable in India. Hon'ble ITA No.2086-2088/Kol/2016 AYs 09-10 to 11-12 ACIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TIRUPATI NIRYAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), O/O The Dcit, Central Circle 1(1) Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Vs. 110, Shantipally, Em By Pass Kolkata-700029, West Bengal Pin-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct4058P Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

section 50C, as held in various judicial decisions, as mentioned in the preceding paras. In view of the above discussion, addition of Rs. 1,91,83,329/- under the head 'Long Term Capital gains' is deleted. 4. Grounds of Appeal No.3 4.1 Assessee had made investments in shares. However, assessee had not disallowed any expenses

BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS was not applicable on drawing to UAE, Dubai and as such disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was not warranted, ignoring that payment of Rs.63,07,123/- to UAE (Dubai) was fees for technical service in nature on which tax was required to be deducted u/s 195, but not deducted and as such, provision of disallowance

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS was not applicable on drawing to UAE, Dubai and as such disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was not warranted, ignoring that payment of Rs.63,07,123/- to UAE (Dubai) was fees for technical service in nature on which tax was required to be deducted u/s 195, but not deducted and as such, provision of disallowance

ONKAR PARIVAHAN FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.158/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) the following expenditures incurred by the assessee on the basis of erroneous conclusion of non-deduction of tax at source. (TDS). a) Purchases of Rs. 1,89,96,589/- from Tirupati Mercantile & Trading Co. Ltd. b) Purchase of gift items of Rs. 5,95,598/- from G.V. Promoters

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BENTEC INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle -1(1), Kolkata.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Bentec India Ltd………………. ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Phase-Ii, Kasba Industrial Estates, Plot No.11, Kol-700107.. [Pan: Aabcb0647G] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manish Tiwari, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 186 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 186 days. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we find

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

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD- KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARTAJ SEWA SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

TDS @ 20% was liable to be made. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal by holding that neither the recipient/payee had a PE in India nor the payment was in the nature of royalty. The relevant extract from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is as under: “Ground Nos. 4 to 6 relates to the merits

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD- KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARTAJ SEWA SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

TDS deduction by the assessee as per order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the\nAct dated 29.03.2019 passed by AO.\n5. Whether in law or facts of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals) has erred in not providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer for\npresenting his case and arguments.\n6. Though the tax effect

A.C.PAUL AGRICULTURAL CO. PVT. LTD.,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T.,CIR-1, KOLKATA , SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2469/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C. Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. D.C.I.T., Cir-I, Siliguri Ltd. Vs ‘Arjun Bhawan’ 177, Hill Cart Road Siliguri Darjeeling - 734001 [Pan : Aacca5650M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Siliguri, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Before Taking Cognizance Of The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee In Seriatim, We Deem It Proper To Take Note Of The Brief Background. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Tea Plantation & Manufacturing Of Tea. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/09/2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.96,04,272/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & A Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Passed Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 18/03/2016. The Assessing Officer Has Made Certain

TDS on payment made on account Fine of labour charges, therefore, the said disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 6. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong in holding that the assessee was covered by Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, therefore, the disallowance made

BIG BOSS FOODS PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR. 1, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). On the basis of information gathered on records, ld. AO re-opened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22.12.2018 after obtaining the necessary approval u/s 151(1) of the Act from