DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT(OSD)(TDS),WD-5(3),DARJEELING, DARJEELING.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS), Ward-5(3), Darjeeling on 16-03-2018 u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 demanding Rs.26,24,748/- for non deduction of tax at source under section 194A and Rs.77,12,381/- for interest u/s.201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 though no tax was deductible in terms of exemption provided uls.194A(3)(v

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1),SILIGURI. , SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS), Ward-5(3), Darjeeling on 16-03-2018 u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 demanding Rs.26,24,748/- for non deduction of tax at source under section 194A and Rs.77,12,381/- for interest u/s.201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 though no tax was deductible in terms of exemption provided uls.194A(3)(v

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS of 274,795/-\nwas duly deducted under Section 194A of the Act. (Page-90)\nDuring the course of the assessment proceedings, notice/s 142(1)\nissued seeking details of unsecured loan raised during the financial\nyear 2010-11, indicating the name(s), complete postal address and\nPAN(s) of the loan creditors, the assessee furnished the loan\nconfirmation and produced

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

TDS should have been deducted at the rate of 10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction of tax at source but in a case, where

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

194A(3)(iii)(e) of the Act is only to cover cases where there is default in payment of insurance premium and consequently interest is levied by the insurer from the insured on such delayed payment. Only in such case no TDS need to be made on interest paid. It is his further submission that the CIT(A) erred

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAMPION COMMERCIAL CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Champion P-7, Chowringhee Commercial Co. Ltd., Square, 3Rd Floor, P-15, Cit Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-73 [Pan No.Aabcc 2373 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “I. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,50,938/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Overrule The Judicial Pronouncement Of Cit Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited (1951) (191) Itr (Sc) Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.13,91,404/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The It Act, 1961. Iii. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.20,25,329/- On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The

194A. vi. That on the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,28,655/- on a wrong appreciation of facts ignoring the provisions laid down in section 194J in the It Act, 1961. vii. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before

ITO, WD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ito(E), Wd-1(3), Kolkata Vs. The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen 6Th Floor, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata Iif Center, 335, Rajdanga Main – 700 071. Road, East Kolkata Township, P.O. Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt 6606 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

194A [Interest other than ‘interest on securities’] and, u/s 194C [payments to contractors]. We note that the difference arises because of timing of the transactions, which is the common issue in TDS matters. The relevant comparative facts and figures are given below: As per form 26AS As per assessee Difference Income 3

I.T.O WD - 6(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S AXIX OVERSEAS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

194A of the Act as per the Notification No.S0861(E) dated 01.06.2007. Therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the payment of interest to M/s PEC Ltd. ii) Bills form PEC Ltd. for ₹24,48,531/- was received by the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, the interest expense for ₹24,48,531/- was recorded during

AXIX OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

194A of the Act as per the Notification No.S0861(E) dated 01.06.2007. Therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the payment of interest to M/s PEC Ltd. ii) Bills form PEC Ltd. for ₹24,48,531/- was received by the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, the interest expense for ₹24,48,531/- was recorded during

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SMT. CHAMPA NANDI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Acit, Circle-25, Kolkata Vs. Smt. Champa Nandi 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Flat No.Ud-0606, Udita Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata – 700 068. Complex, 1050/1, Survey Park, E.M. Byepass, Kolkata – 700 075. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abqpn 6470 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

3 SREI Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. 86-C, Tapsia Road (south) 1,08,93,955 Kolkata :- 700 046. 4 SRIRAM Equipment Finance Co. Ltd. Mira Tower, DN-27, 23,85,527 Sector- V, Salt LakeCity, Kolkata:- 700 091 Total 4,41,12,662 During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to why such expenses (as described

SUBIR ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Ao That Post Dated Cheques For Short As Pdcs Were Issued Against Such Loan To The Said Finance Company & Therefore, The Assessee Was Not In A Position To Deduct Tax At Source On Interest Payments. This Explanation Of The Assessee Was Not Acceptable To Ao & As Such Added Said Amount 1 Of Rs.6,74,976/- To The Total Income Of Assessee For Violation Of Section 194A Of The Act By Invoking The Provisions U/Sec 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

194A(1) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 7. Before us the ld.AR submits that the interest on motor vehicle was paid to M/s. Sundaram Finance and EMI’s were deducted from bank through PDCs that were issued. There is no chance to assessee to deduct any TDS from such payment. The ld.AR

M/S STANDARD FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.7(2), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 178/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Standard Financial Consultants Private Limited. returns and the deduction is allowable in terms of judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virgin Creations in G.A. No. 3200 of 2011 & ITAT No. 302 of 2011 wherein it was held as under:- “Moreover, the Supreme

HARBHAJAN SINGH,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 1(4),KOLKATA, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

3 6. Before us Ld. AR filed paper book which is running pages 1 to 87 and submitted that loan from Cyrillic Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 4 lacs was taken through banking channel. The observation of AO that loan was taken in cash is wrong. Ld. AR in support of his claim has produced copy of bank statement which

SRI HARTAJ SEWA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

TDS, if required from M/s. STAR Consortium Pte Limited as the CEO is in India too frequently and having 50% shares in the Company etc. In view of facts and legal position stated above, it is hereby held that the assessment order u/s 143(3) of Income tax Act, 1961 on 17.03.2015 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

194A, 194C, 194 H, 194- I, and 194 J either at the time of payment or at the time of giving credit to the recipient, section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. In view of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam (supra) relied upon by the appellant and also in view of the ratio

GANAPATI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 485/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Ganapati Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.,…Appellant 6B, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aadcg2354D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-6(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kadel, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

194A was deducted by these parties which proves that they have not provided for any interest payment in their books of accounts. The Learned 2 Ganapati Technology Services Private Limited Assessing Officer issued show cause notice on 23/11/2018 which stated to substantiate the source of investment made in Reliance Yield Maximiser and documentary evidence in order to substantiate non charging

RAMNATH JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

TDS) u/s. 194A of the Act. Thus, the provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was ITA No.1019/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Ramnath Jhunjhunwala vs. ITO Wd-40(1) Kol. Page 3 violated by assessee and no disallowance was made by the AO in his assessment order. 6. In view of above

ANAND JHAWAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-34(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2010-11

TDS u/s. 194A of the Act and according to AO for which assessee admitted that the same is an advertent mistake. Accordingly, the AO added an amount of Rs.1,46,556/- to the total income of the assessee. 8. In first appeal, before the CIT-A assessee contended that all such loan creditors taken such amount received from the assessee

MANJU CHOUDHARY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-38, KOLKATA

In the result, we cancel this order and allow the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

TDS from the payment of interest to loan creditors and hence she is liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As this disallowance was not done in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2009, the same requires rectification u/s 154 of the Act. A notice was given to the assessee, after receiving