APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the issues, which are in challenge before us. 7. So far as the main issue relating to deemed dividend under section 2(22

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the issues, which are in challenge before us. 7. So far as the main issue relating to deemed dividend under section 2(22

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the issues, which are in challenge before us. 7. So far as the main issue relating to deemed dividend under section 2(22

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAM BAKE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

section 2(22)(e ) are satisfied.] 1.3 The assessee in writing, during the course of hearing explained that Switz foods Pvt Ltd having IT PAN: AAECS1805N is one of the associate/sister concern and filed the detail of transactions. Further, loan/ advance made by M/ s Switz Foods Pvt Ltd to the assessee company was not engaged in the ordinary business

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

section 2(22)e. He has not taken cognisance of the fact that huge amounts of interest had been paid against the said loans by the appellant company against which TDS

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

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision

DCIT, C.C.-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY, ASANSOL

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and corresponding cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as under:-

TDS made by BECML on such payment. The provisions of section 2(22)(e) were introduced to bring within the tax net monies

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

22 services. The deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act was available in the following manner:- 1. First 5 years 100% 2. Next 5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered

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

22 services. The deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act was available in the following manner:- 1. First 5 years 100% 2. Next 5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

22 services. The deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act was available in the following manner:- 1. First 5 years 100% 2. Next 5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

22 services. The deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act was available in the following manner:- 1. First 5 years 100% 2. Next 5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered

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

22 services. The deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act was available in the following manner:- 1. First 5 years 100% 2. Next 5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

22 services. The deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act was available in the following manner:- 1. First 5 years 100% 2. Next 5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered

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

22 services. The deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act was available in the following manner:- 1. First 5 years 100% 2. Next 5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

22 services. The deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act was available in the following manner:- 1. First 5 years 100% 2. Next 5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered

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

22.\n2.\nITA No. 1457/Kol/2024\nEmami Realty Ltd.; A.Y. 2021-22\nWe first take up the appeal of the Revenue wherein the grounds raised are as under:-\n“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the L'd CIT(A), has\nerred in deleting the addition of Rs. 374,53,83,754 made

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

section 201(2) of the Income Tax Act specifically provides that the TDS either not deducted or not deposited in time along with interest thereon, shall be a charge on the property of such person responsible. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Harshad Shantilal Mehta” (supra) is, in no way, applicable