SOMA RANI GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

194 C as substituted by the Finance Act 2 of 2009 w.e.f. 1/10/2009 has now not made any distinction between a payment to a contractor or sub-contractor and all payments for carrying out any work in pursuance of contract are covered within the fold o f section 194C (1) of the Act. Further Explanation (iii) also provides that

M/S. HOOGHLY DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 23(), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

194-1 or section 194K, as the case may be, a declaration in writing in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that the tax on his estimated total income of the previous year in which such income is to be included in computing his total income will be nil. (ID) Notwithstanding anything

M/S. HOOGHLY DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 23(), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

194-1 or section 194K, as the case may be, a declaration in writing in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that the tax on his estimated total income of the previous year in which such income is to be included in computing his total income will be nil. (ID) Notwithstanding anything

M/S MCC PTA INDIA CORPN. PVT. LTD.,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-59, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

194-I of the act, by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the act, on rent paid to Kolkata Port Trust (KPT). 3. Brief facts are that the assessee has claimed expenditure on account of rent paid to KPT at Rs.54,21,256/-. The assessee has not deducted any tax at source on payment of this rent

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

iii) Hardware and software is supplied by the vendor and it is customized to the need of the network as per the TEC specifications. iv) Installation as per vendor guidelines - it involves installation of both hardware and software. I.T.A. No. 1864/KOL./2012 Assessment year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Page 14 of 56 v) Call

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

III* to section\n194C;\n[(v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation\nto section 194-1;\n(vi) "royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi)\nof sub-section (1) of section 9;]\"\n11.1 It is submitted that if tax is directly paid by the recipient, the\nassessee

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

3. In this Ground of Appeal the Assessee claimed deduction of interest on delayed deposit of Tax Deducted at Source. The Assessee had relied on various judgements rendered by Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal and Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal. The Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal had allowed such claim in the case of NarayaniIspat Alloys Ltd. and the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal

MARTIN BURN LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 4(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3 of 5 5. In such circumstances, we are of the view that Kolkata Port Trust is a charitable institution entitled for registration under section 12A of the Act. For assessment year 2007-08 involved in this appeal, Kolkata Port Trust was assessed in the status of a charitable institution and there was no demand raised against it and refund

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

194 H of the Act. 18. In view of above, we set aside the order of the Id CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the demand raised in respect of this issue under section 201(1) and 2O1(1A) of the Act in respect of all the three assessment years under consideration.” Emphasis Supplied

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

194 H of the Act. 18. In view of above, we set aside the order of the Id CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the demand raised in respect of this issue under section 201(1) and 2O1(1A) of the Act in respect of all the three assessment years under consideration.” Emphasis Supplied

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

III* to section 194C; [(v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;]” 11.1 It is submitted that if tax is directly paid by the recipient, the assessee shall

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

III* to section\n194C;\n[(v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation\nto section 194-1;\n(vi) "royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi)\nof sub-section (1) of section 9;]\"\n11.1 It is submitted that if tax is directly paid by the recipient, the\nassessee

ITO, WD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BATRAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.983/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(1) -Vs.- M/S. Batram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccb 0291 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl.Cit For The Respondent : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

194(1) shall not apply where the interest income in question is paid to any company or cooperative society carrying on the business of insurance. It is not in dispute that Reliance Capital Ltd is a non banking finance company. It also had one of the line of business of life insurance and general insurance. 4. The AO held that

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. MARKETING DIVISION (EASTERN REGION),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 58 (TDS)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

iii) The assessee failed to produce documents to demonstrate that the payee has included the terminalling charges in its income and has paid the tax thereon. The AO also observed from the assessment order submitted along with computation of income that there was outstanding demand of the tax on BRPL for the financial year

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

194(1) as existing in assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08, i.e. relevant assessment years in the present appeals, it is clear that the assessee is under no obligation to deduct TDS on the expenditure of advertisement, as the assessee being an individual, and the claim of the assessee is as per provisions of law. Once the assessee

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 were

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

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 were

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

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 were