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

ADVANCEMULTISYSTEM BRODDBAND COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS),HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

TDS amounts after due date and paid interest thereon. Section 221 of the Act empowers the AO to impose penalty for any continuing default. The assessee should be in continuing default in making the payment of tax, in addition to the amount of the arrears and amount of interest payable under sub-section (2) of section 220

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

220 (Kar) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relying on the decision in the case of Ishikawajma Harima (supra) held that the Explanation incorporated in Section 9 (By Finance Act, 2010) suggests that criterion of residence, place of business or business connection in India has been done away with for fastening the tax liability, but the criteria of rendering

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

220 (Kar) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relying on the decision in the case of Ishikawajma Harima (supra) held that the Explanation incorporated in Section 9 (By Finance Act, 2010) suggests that criterion of residence, place of business or business connection in India has been done away with for fastening the tax liability, but the criteria of rendering

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

M/S AI CHAMPADANY INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 40(a)(ia). (4) For that the appellant assessee was under a bonafide belief that the impugned payments were not subject to TDS provisions, as such, ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted additions made u/s 40(a)(ia). (5) For that the ld. CIT(A() ought to have considered the issue of disallowance

M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

220(e) will not apply. Further it also expressed that if a person is a beneficial shareholder but not a registered shareholder then also the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not apply. In the present case, the assessee is holding 10,99,300 shares in M/s. Mega Resources Ltd as per register produced

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

D.C I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 874/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T., Circle-2, -Vs.- M/S. West Bengal State Kolkata Electricity Transmission Co.Ltd. Kolkata [Pan : Aaacw 6952 C] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

section 194C is not applicable to such annual carrying charges as per tariff order dated 26.07.2007 of WBERC and accordingly addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) is deleted. Therefore ground no.4 and 5 are allowed.” 17. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) revenue has raised ground nos. 2 and 3 before the Tribunal. We have heard the submissions

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

M/S ABHOY CHARAN BAKSHI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] S.A.No.08/Kol/2016 (A/O Ita No.1492/Kol/2015) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Abhoy Charan Bakshi -Vs.- D. C.I.T., Circle-27, Kolkata Haldia [Pan : Aaefm9711E) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Abhoy Charan Bakshi -Vs.- A. C.I.T., Circle-27, Kolkata Haldia [Pan : Aaefm9711E) (Respondent) (Appellant)

TDS Sl.No. Name of the Nature of Amount PAN of the AO of the Persons to payment paid (Rs.) payees payees Whom payment Was made by the assessee 1. Ananda Sankar Job charges 18,80,188 BUKPS3454F Ward Angul Sahoo 2. Chitaranjan Job charges 2,75,835 AGUPD4758JWard Angul Dwirbedy 3. Prasanta Kumar Job charges 5,73,796 DHAPS6717N Ward

I.T.O WD - 12(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S JAI VIKSHU NIKETAN PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

220/- under head “business & profession” on dated 30.09.2009. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS module and accordingly the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly served to the assessee. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment at Rs. 4,48,80,450/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. The solitary issue raised