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

v JCIT (ITA Nos. 1644, 3041/MUM/2010), wherein it was held as follows: “The provisions of section 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

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

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

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 shall not be deemed

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

v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC). The question before the Supreme Court was whether the payment of interest on money borrowed for payment of income-tax was an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business as contemplated by sub- section (1) of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court had decided

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

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

TDS. We find from the order of Tribunal dated June, 8, 2007 passed in ITA No. 2011/Kol/2006 in the case of Kolkata Port Trust v. DIT(Exemption), Kolkata that Kolkata Port Trust is a charitable institution eligible for registration u/s 12A of the Act and such registration was directed to be granted with effect from April

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

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 shall not be deemed

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

section 194C of the Act were applicable on payment of Terminalling Charges. The ground nos. 2, 3 & 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of L’d CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. ITA No.1517-1519/Kol/2009 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 Indian Oil Corpn Ltd. Marketing Divn. (E) Region v. DCIT Cir-58 (TDS0 Kol. Page

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

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 not be deemed

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

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

3) for AY 2021-22 passed in the case of the respondent\n(Emami Realty Limited) when such action is in the interest of revenue of the Government\n7. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in\nallowing the assessee's appeal against the direction of the NFAC

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 335 (SC) which are decided on the basis of s.42 of the Indian I. T. Act , 192, which corresponds to s. 9( l)(i) of the Act). 9. In the instant case, the non-resident assesses did not carry on any business operations in the taxable territories. They acted as selling agents outside India

CACHAR KING PLANTATION (P) LTD,DARJEELING vs. D.C.I.T.CIR - 1,SILIGURI, SIKKIM

In the result, Revenue’s filed is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

v. M/s Intelsys Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 3. Briefly stated facts are that during the year assessee debited an amount of ₹1,02,39,690/- as payment towards software development charges without deducting TDs u/s. 194-J of the Act. On question by AO to assessee about the violation of TDS provision assessee submitted that expense claimed

RAJDEEP PRASAD SHAW,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD-51(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 41(1) of the IT Act is not applicable. So the addition of Rs.65,153/- is justified. I confirm the addition u/s. 41(1) of the IT Act. ITA No.1114 & 1237/Kol/2012 A.Ys. 08-09 & 06-07 Rajdeep Prasad Shaw v. ITO Wd-51(3) Kol. Page 5 Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second

RAJDEEP PRASAD SHAW,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD-51(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 41(1) of the IT Act is not applicable. So the addition of Rs.65,153/- is justified. I confirm the addition u/s. 41(1) of the IT Act. ITA No.1114 & 1237/Kol/2012 A.Ys. 08-09 & 06-07 Rajdeep Prasad Shaw v. ITO Wd-51(3) Kol. Page 5 Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second

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

194 Taxman 518 (Ker) concurred with; Ahmedabad Stamp ITA No.1499-1502, 1537-1540/Kol/2015 & 136-137 & 232-233/Kol/2016 Vodafone East Ltd./Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS) Cir-3/59 Kol Page 11 Vendor Association vs. Union of India (2002) 176 CTR (Guj) 193 : (2002) 257 ITR 202 (Guj) distinguished.” (Paras 25 & 26) The ld. AR further fairly agreed

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

194 Taxman 518 (Ker) concurred with; Ahmedabad Stamp ITA No.1499-1502, 1537-1540/Kol/2015 & 136-137 & 232-233/Kol/2016 Vodafone East Ltd./Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS) Cir-3/59 Kol Page 11 Vendor Association vs. Union of India (2002) 176 CTR (Guj) 193 : (2002) 257 ITR 202 (Guj) distinguished.” (Paras 25 & 26) The ld. AR further fairly agreed