BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement was inserted. Section 234E for ready reference is reproduced and the same reads as under: "Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub- section (3) of section 200

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement was inserted. Section 234E for ready reference is reproduced and the same reads as under: "Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub- section (3) of section 200

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement was inserted. Section 234E for ready reference is reproduced and the same reads as under: "Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub- section (3) of section 200

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement was inserted. Section 234E for ready reference is reproduced and the same reads as under: "Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub- section (3) of section 200

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement was inserted. Section 234E for ready reference is reproduced and the same reads as under: "Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub- section (3) of section 200

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement was inserted. Section 234E for ready reference is reproduced and the same reads as under: "Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub- section (3) of section 200

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement was inserted. Section 234E for ready reference is reproduced and the same reads as under: "Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub- section (3) of section 200

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), TDS,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

200(3) and Section 206C(3) was by virtue of Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act which provided for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

200(3) and Section 206C(3) was by virtue of Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act which provided for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), TDS,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

200(3) and Section 206C(3) was by virtue of Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act which provided for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS

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

TDS is nothing but a derivative of tax and is not an allowable expenditure even under the provisions of section 36 and 37 of the Act. 16. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to refer to certain provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section

ITO, WARD-2(2), BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. NUR EGG CENTRE, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1873/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(2), Burdwan….......................................................…..…......Appellant M/S. Nur Egg Centre……………………………………………......……………………………………Respondent 142, Spandan Complex G.T. Road Burdwan - 713101 [Pan : Aacfn 4999 F]

200/- more so, when the assessee has admitted violation of provisions of Section 194C(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961 before the A.O as well as before the Ld. CIT(A)? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)’s order is perverse inasmuch as the assessee did not have any TAN during

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.253/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 National Insurance Co. Ltd...................................................................……Appellant 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata- 700071. [Pan: Aaacn9967E] Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds,Ghaziabad, Up...…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Was Wrong In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Against The Intimation Dated 02/06/2019 Issued U/S 200A For The Financial Year 2018-19 (Relevant For The Assessment Year 2019- 20). 2. That Without Prejudice To The Contention Raised In Ground No. 1 Above, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Was Wrong In Stating In The Appellate Order That The Appeal Of The Appellant Had Allegedly Related

TDS statement(s) within the time prescribed in the provisions of Section 200(3)/206C(3) of the Act, shall

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 200:” 3. Issue of grossing up of the USD component of the receipts of the Assessee as the tax on the same was being borne by GRSE at the rate of 15% by way of TDS

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 200:” 3. Issue of grossing up of the USD component of the receipts of the Assessee as the tax on the same was being borne by GRSE at the rate of 15% by way of TDS

ITO, WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHOK TRADING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

3) CIT Vs Universal Traffic Co., Express Transport Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1426 to 1429 /Mum/2013 & 1473 to 1475/Mum/2013. ITA No.650/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Wd-45(2) Kol v. M/s Ashok Trading Co. Page 4 In all the above cases, it was held that the provisions of TDS do not attract if there is no contract. A careful analysis

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

200/- as deemed income on the alleged ground that provisions for rent free accommodation for the mutwallis is it by the provisions of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(3) of the Act without considering that the mutwallis were authorized under the mandatory rule framed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in respect of the assessee Wakf

SHREE ASHOKE PRASAD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 582/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata -Vs- Ashoke Prasad. [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ashoke Prasad -Vs- Dcit, Circle-49, Kolkata [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

200 Ramesh Transport Co. 19,76,000 Om Sai Construction 5,26,000 J R Dhawan 3,00,000 Chowdhary Earth Movers Pvt Ltd 13,00,960 Mayur Roadlines 1,50,000 Hazi Samiullah Khan 95,000 ----------------------- 2,21,40,960/- The assessee replied before the ld AO that it had obtained the PAN from all the transporters and accordingly