GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-54, ADMN. KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 459/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Golden Trust Financial Services -Vs- Acit, Circle-54, Kolkata [Pan: Aacfg 8395 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

SECTION 190 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - ADMINISTRATION OF TDS - REDRESSAL OF TAXPAYER GRIEVANCES RAISED DUE TO TDS MISMATCHES

M/S THE RIGHT ADDRESS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,(TDS) WARD-59(4) (TDS),KOLKATA KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

190 of the Act, in certain cases, as provided under Chapter XVII of the Act, the tax is to be paid by deduction at source. The said amount is to be deducted by way of tax by the person who has to make payment to the concerned person (payee) and as per the provisions of section

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

190 and 191. Part B concerns Deduction [of tax] at source. Part BB relates to the Collection [of tax] at source. Part C pertains to Advance payment of tax. Part D concerns Collection and recovery of tax. 7.4 Part E concerns 'tax payable under provisional assessment' and includes Sections 233 and 234 of the Act as omitted by the Taxation

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

190. As the TDS had been for Rs. 1,65,08,496 and advance Taxes of Rs. 20,50,000 had been paid, a sum of Rs.1,19,70,306 was shown as Refundable to the appellant, in the Return. All the Infrastructure projects had to be carried out on the basis of the agreements/contracts entered into with the Statutory

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

TDS applies only to those sums which are chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act. If the contention of the Department that any person making payment to a non-resident is necessarily required to deduct TAS then the consequence would be that the Department would be entitled to appropriate the moneys deposited by the payer even

I LOUNGE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

TDS applicability on the 3 I Lounge, AY 2010-11 payment of municipal taxes. He also drew our attention to the ledger account of Rent for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 together with sample monthly invoices of R.D.Developers Pvt Ltd. In response to this, the ld DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 4.3. We have heard

I.T.O., WARD-35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI KAMAL KISHORE TOSHNIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in Ground no

TDS Shri Kamal Kishore Toshniwal Assessment Year: 2012-13 under section 194IB and section 194IA has been deducted. Accordingly, the CIT(A) noted that certain benefits were accrued to the assessee-individual by making the interest-free loans earlier, which have yielded certain incomes in the succeeding years. Based on these facts the CIT(A) relied on the ratio emanating

SHRI VISHAL KUMAR ARYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy., Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 1540/Kol/2016 A.Y 2009-10 Vishal Kumar Arya V/S. I.T.O., Ward 44(3), Kolkata Pan: Agzpa8338G (Appellant) (Respondent)

190/- paid to M/s. Maa Kamaksha Minerals Ltd and M/s. S.K.D P.Ltd. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have treated the impugned payments as contractual in nature inviting TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Act. They have invoked section

ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A T & S INDIA PVT. LTD., KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 259/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05

190/- to AT&S Austria in respect of reimbursement of actual manufacturing costs, the assessee made application to the Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-I, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the 'DDIT') for an order under section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for permitting the assessee to remit

ITO, WD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M.S.K. TRAVELS AND TOURS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

TDS thereupon. This appears to be the second round of proceedings before the tribunal. The tax payer had earlier filed its appeal ITA No.458/Kol/2012 challenging correctness of the impugned section 40(a)(i) disallowance made in course of assessment framed on 30.12.2010 as affirmed by the CIT(A) in the first round lower appellate order dated 17.02.2012. A coordinate bench

DEORAH NAHALA BAIKANTHAPUR SKUS LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(3) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.2484/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deorah Nahala Baikanthapur Skus Ltd.………………………….……Appellant Shyampur-Ii, Ps: Sasati, Village: Deorah, Howrah-711326. [Pan:Aaald0610P] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), Kolkata ………………………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. Sarkar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 08, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2021 Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Against The Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-14, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’).

190/- as against the total income shown at NIL after deduction of income under section 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961, which is confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), therefore, his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 3. For that on the facts of the case, The Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in not considering the fact that the assessee

ITO,WD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ARPEE BUILDERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

190 taxman 391 (SC), we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue. 4. Ground no. 3 of revenue’s appeal is as under: 6 ITA No.303/Kol/2014 & CO No.52/Cal/2014 Arpee Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., AYs- 2009-10 “3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMESH PRASAD SAO, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

190/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuance of a notice under section 143(2) on 08.09.2014. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order under section 143(3) on 30.03.2016. He determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.341,73,20,958/-. Ld. Assessing Officer has made the following disallowances:- 1. Periphery

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-33(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KWALITY CONSTRUTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS from the payments made to 14 labour contractors. Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no oral contract between the assessee and the labour sardars/contractors and also failed to appreciate that the payments on account of labour charges was made by the assessee to the labour contractors despite the fact that the assessee could not adduce

GOGHAT THANA LARGE SIZED PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1872 /Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Goghat Thana Large Sized Primary -Vs- Acit, Circle-1, Hooghly Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd. [Pan: Aaalg 0062 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

190/-. In the said assessment, the ld. AO categorically held that though the assessee’s income was eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act, the said deduction is not applicable in respect of interest income and rental income for which deduction u/s 80P of the Act was denied. In the said assessment, disallowance of handling and transportation charges

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 901/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata.................…………………….………....………………...…………………….….Appellant M/S The Peerless General Finance & Inv. Co. Ltd.....................................…....….…………..…...Respondent [Pan :Aabct 3043 L ] Appearances By: Shri S. Halder, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

TDS (Rs.2,78,95,043/- ), Advance Tax (Rs.7,50,00,000) and Self Assessment Tax (Rs.17,11,50,735) as indicated in the order dated 23.05.2016 passed u/s 245D(6B) by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Though there was nothing mentioned about any refund to be issued to the assessee in the order passed by the Settlement Commission

M/S D. D. INFOTECH,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (i

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.30 & 31/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S D.D.Infotech, Vs. Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata 79/1, K.N.C.Road, Barasat, North 24 Parganas-700124 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffd 9070 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Suvam Das, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukharjee, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Above Cited Two Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Xxxii, Kolkata, In Appeal Nos.33&34/Xxxii/10-11/50(1)/Kol, Dated 17.09.2013, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 08.06.210. 2. The Above Mentioned To Appeals Relate To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Common Issues Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Issue Is That The Ao Has Added A Sum Of Rs.10,30,926/- For Assessment Year 2007-08 & Rs.9,28,440/- For D.D.Infotech

190/- & Rs.48,397/- on 07.02.2007 & 10.01.07 totalling Rs.71,587/- and accordingly the commission was less declared by the assessee. The assessee filed the debit notes during the appellate proceedings and these were also forwarded to the A.O. for comments. As the A.O. has also not objected to these facts, the addition of Rs.71,587/- is deleted. The next addition

M/S D. D. INFOTECH,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (i

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.30 & 31/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S D.D.Infotech, Vs. Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata 79/1, K.N.C.Road, Barasat, North 24 Parganas-700124 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffd 9070 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Suvam Das, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukharjee, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Above Cited Two Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Xxxii, Kolkata, In Appeal Nos.33&34/Xxxii/10-11/50(1)/Kol, Dated 17.09.2013, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 08.06.210. 2. The Above Mentioned To Appeals Relate To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Common Issues Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Issue Is That The Ao Has Added A Sum Of Rs.10,30,926/- For Assessment Year 2007-08 & Rs.9,28,440/- For D.D.Infotech

190/- & Rs.48,397/- on 07.02.2007 & 10.01.07 totalling Rs.71,587/- and accordingly the commission was less declared by the assessee. The assessee filed the debit notes during the appellate proceedings and these were also forwarded to the A.O. for comments. As the A.O. has also not objected to these facts, the addition of Rs.71,587/- is deleted. The next addition