STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 4, DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

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

section 201(1A) and 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is a Public Sector Undertaking. It had deposited TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EAST INDIA BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

section 154 requesting the AO to grant credit to the Assessee with respect to the above TDS amount. The Assessee submitted the following documents towards its claim for TDS credit of Rs.3,220

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 220(2) of the Act for delayed payment of taxes was not allowable as deduction in computation of the total income. 10. In our view whenever interest is charged under the Act, whether for delayed payment of tax or filing under estimate of tax or for non- submission of the estimate or return or for default in filing return

TEESTA VALLEY EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri, S.S. Godaraassessment Year :2013-14 Teesta Valley Exports Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(2) Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th 3, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001. Floor, P-7, [Pan No Aaact 9980 D] Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 18-07-2018

TDS liability by making payment through middleman credited by him. The only ground as taken by the assessee is that the amount was paid to these two persons were reimbursed. In view of above, the order of the AO is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 3. Learned Authorised Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that

M/S POWER MAX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8, KOL., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 125/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Power Max (India) Pvt. Ltd....................................………………………….............Appellant 18A, Park Street, Stephen Court, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 9559 R] Dcit Circle 8 Kolkata..………………………………………………………….............Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri A.N. Chatterjee, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 05, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 15, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 18, Kolkata Dated 19.12.2016. 2. At The Time Of Hearing Before The Tribunal, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Pressed Ground No 1 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee. It Is Also Noted That Ground No 4 Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal In General Which Does Not Call For Specific Adjudication.

220/- was disallowed by him under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO further noted that the assessee had failed to deduct tax on cumulative payment amounting to Rs. 37,23,755/-. He accordingly disallowed the said amount also under section 40(a)(ia). Thus a total disallowance of Rs. 1,16,51,016/- was made

DCIT, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. 3 GUYS, HOWRAH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

220/- which is against the provision of Rule 37BA(3) of the Act. 9. The AO in his assessment order has given the credit of TDS amount corresponding to the income declared by assessee in its income tax return. The assessee has claimed credit of TDS for an amount of ₹1,59,57,961/- only

M/S. A.K. INDUSTRIES ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2009-10

TDS u/s. 194C of the Act on various head(s) of payments. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as follows:- “4. "ल"खत ""ब"ट / Written submission The A/R of the appellant submitted written submission, to substantiate its claim, which is re-produced as under: "We write the above references, wherein the A. O. has instructed

SINGH CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

220/- on which TDS of\n₹1,74,082/- was deducted u/s 194C and deposited in Govt treasury.\nWe note that similarly the assessee made payment in A.Y. 2016-17\nand in the subsequent assessment year 2019-20. We note that the\nimpugned sub-contractor in question is appearing in page no.11 of\nthe Paper Book at serial no.5 which

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers V/S. Acit, Circle-2(2), Pvt.Ltd., Block-Ep, Plot-Y-14, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-91 Kokata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 9181 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata’S Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2017, Involving Proceedings Section 144C R.W. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Assessee Appellant’S First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenge Correctness Of Transfer Price Adjustment Amounting To ₹345,51,562/- In Course Of Assessment As Pertaining To Its International Transactions With Its Overseas Associate Enterprise (Ae). This Assessee Is A Company Providing Consultancy Including Tax & Regulatory Services. It Filed Its Return On 30.11.2012 Stating Total Income Of ₹51,62,16,310/-. This Followed Its Revised Return Dated 31.03.2014 Reducing Its Taxable Income To ₹49,87,12,700/-. The Assessing Officer Took Up Scrutiny. He Came Across

Section G of the study on search criteria is to be seen. The asses se chooses NACE Codes (NACE (Nomenclature of Economic Activities) is the European statistical classification of economic activities. NACE groups organizations according to their business activities. Statistics produced on the basis of NACE are comparable at European level and, in general, at world level in line with

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

TDS has been made by the assessee. Therefore, all the above mentioned amounts were required to have been added to total income u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act if no tax was deducted from payment to contractors/sub-contractors u/s 194C, the expenditure was not deductible from the earnings

REAL TIME ENGINEERING (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Real Time Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward- P-165/1 (A-2/2), Diamond Park 2(1), Kolkata. Vs. Kalua, South 24 Parganas- 700104, West Bengal, India. (Pan: Aaccr1055M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 43B of the Act. In respect of employees’ contribution the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd (supra) be adhered to. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being 3 Real Time Engineering P. Ltd., AY 2018-19 heard to submit its explanation and documentary evidence

VISA POWER LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Visa Power Limited P.C.I.T-4, Kolkata-700 069 Visa House, V/S. 8/10 Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027. Pan: Aaccv-1853-D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

TDS, it is observed that the order has been passed without reconciling the said mismatch making the order erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Similarly on the issue of interest income, it appears that the issue has not been carried to the logical end by examining the issue adequately making the order erroneous

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

220/-, inter-alia making the following two additions/disallowances: (i) Disallowance of Rs. 1,06,95,600/-,debited under the head ‘legal expenses’. (ii) An addition of Rs. 31,12,50,000/- reflected in the Balance sheet under the head “capital reserve”. The said sum represented a “non-refundable grant” received by the firm from PricewaterhouseCoopers Services BV, Netherlands

PUSPENDU SEKHAR NANDY,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

220 as against the returned income of INR 774,350. The tax liability determined as per the assessment order on the assessed income is INR 2.107,345. Also, interest of INR 3,399 under section 234B and INR 201.470 under Section 234D has been levied and thereby determined an aggregate tax liability of INR 2,312,214. Further, after allowing

BENGAL DCL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Bengal Dcl Housing Development Co. Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Kolkata Ltd. 24B, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 9839 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

Section 244A as residuary in nature which provides for interest on refund in other cases including excess tax paid on self-assessment U/s 140A of the Act. 2 Bengal DCL Housing Development Co. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2006-07 3. The brief facts qua the issue are that the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer, vide order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

220/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The statutory notices along with questionnaires were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 05.09.2018, after taking the effect of the merger with M/s Nextgen Commosales Private limited as per NCLT order, declaring total income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

220/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The statutory notices along with questionnaires were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 05.09.2018, after taking the effect of the merger with M/s Nextgen Commosales Private limited as per NCLT order, declaring total income

ITO, WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMBA HIGH-RISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Amba High-Rise Pvt. Ward-1(1), P-7, Ltd., 68/2, Harish Chowringhee Square, Mukherjee Road, 7Th Floor, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-25 [Pan No.Aafca 7094 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-02-2018 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)-I, Kolkata Dated 15.09.2010. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-1(1), Kolkata U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 31.12.2009 For Assessment Year 2007-08 By Taking The Following Effective Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Interest Received On Bank Deposits To The Extent Of Rs.62,57,436/- As Income From Other Sources. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Capital Expenditure Claimed Under The Head Loan Syndication Charges Of Rs.1,26,27,000/- 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Interest Expenses Of Rs.86,90,220/- On Account Of Term Loan From Central Bank Of India Which Was Not

Section 40(A)(2) of the Act. The allegation of the AO that the assessee failed to furnish the explanation for making the payment of loan syndication charges is not tenable. It is because the assessee has given the bill raised by AIL which is placed on pages 16 of the paper book. 11.1 We also note that the Revenue