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

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

TDS Certificate is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure - 7. For ready reference. This clearly indicates that loan/advance received from Switz Foods is backed by commercial consideration and is not gratuitous in nature. 6.0 The appellant would like to draw attention that part of the loan granted by Switz Foods is adjusted against the dues which it owes

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

MAITHAN ALLOYS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (IT), WD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

220/- Total 10,21,717/- 1,02,170/- F.Y. 2010-11 (1st Quarter) Party’s Name Amount Credited Short Deduction amount Kim &Chang 1,19,076/- 11,550/- Citi Bank, N.A. 1,33,830/- 12,490/- Total 2,52,906/- 24,040/- Aggrieved by the AO's action of deducting TDS at the rate of 20% instead

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

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

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

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

220 CTR 635 (Del) where it was held that s. 43B applied also to employees’ contribution to ESI and PF and that if a payment was made within the due date u/s. 139(1) of filing the ROI, the disallowance cannot be made. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal: "The only issue involved

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 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

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]

TDS of Rs.3,220,270 5. The AO rejected the petition filed by the Assessee vide his order under section 154 dated 2

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

SUSHIL KUMAR BERLIA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., TDS, WARD - 5(2), SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

220(2) of the Act on default amount comes to Rs. 41,912/- has also been imposed and asked the assessee to pay an amount of Rs. 75,790/-. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

TDS certificates issued by CESC. Hence, the claim of the assessee made before ld. CIT(A) is found correct and accordingly the same is allowed.” 58. Since the AO has himself accepted the claim of the assessee, we are of the view that there is no merit in ground no.3 raised by the revenue. As far as ground no.3 raised

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

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

TDS on this amount in March, 2014 and the same was reflected in 26AS for FY 2013-14. The assesse has also produced a copy of the electricity bill for April, 2014 which clearly shows the adjustment of Rs.48,920/- in it. Thus, it is clear that there is no concealment as such, rather it is just a matter

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

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

220/-. Under scrutiny, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. In response to the said notices, ld. A.R. of the assessee appeared and filed different details in support of return. The assessee produced documentary evidences to establish that the payments were made to parties claiming exemption for non deduction of tax at source except

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