LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS under section 194C of the Act. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(a) on account of ocean freight to the extent of Rs.28.24 crores. The deletion of disallowance by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of balance amount

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

227/- under section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 010. The issue raised in ground no.1 of appeal is against the deletion of addition of ₹4,49,37,500 by the ld. CIT (A) as made

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

227/- under section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 010. The issue raised in ground no.1 of appeal is against the deletion of addition of ₹4,49,37,500 by the ld. CIT (A) as made

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS in term of section 194C of the Act. The CIT(A) only on this premise deleted the addition by observing as under: “After carefully considering the submission of the appellant and the facts as stated by the AO in the assessment order, the contention of the AR is found to be correct that the provisions

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS in term of section 194C of the Act. The CIT(A) only on this premise deleted the addition by observing as under: “After carefully considering the submission of the appellant and the facts as stated by the AO in the assessment order, the contention of the AR is found to be correct that the provisions

SHANKAR ROADWAYS,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS deduction in view of sub-section (6) of section 194C of the Act, as they were not owning more than ten goods carriage during the relevant financial year. We find that the aforesaid issues were duly explained by the assessee not only before the AO, but also, before the ld. Pr. CIT. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT without examining

ACIT, CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHREE HANUMAN IRON WORKS, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS (Rs.3039/-), Advance Tax (Rs.100000) and allowing interest under section 244A (Rs. l4425/-), an amount of Rs. 117464/- was arrived at as 'refundable'. The refund amount was adjusted with refund made u/s 143(3) of Rs.3390 to result in a net refundable of Rs.114074/-. In response to notice u/s 142(1), the assessee submitted 'Details of purchases for the year

ESTATE OF BINOY KUMAR CHANDRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 32(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Estate Of Binoy Kumar Chandra Vs. Office Of The Income-Tax Officer P-24, C.I.T. Road Entally, Ward-32(2), Kolkata, 10B, Kolkata-700014, West Bengal Middleton Row, Kolkata-700 71 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabae6679B Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Aditya Bikram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

227/- under Section 270A of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A), after taking into account, the submissions of the assessee ,dismissed the appeal of the assessee Estate of Binoy Kumar Chandra; A.Y. 2020-21 by holding that assessee could not offer

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

227/- against the interest income as against the income tax refunds of Rs. 43,12,278/-. Its only prayer seeks only net of two sums to be taxed. The CIT(Appeals) detailed reasoning under challenge denying the impugned netting relief reads as follows: “4.3. I have carefully examined the assessment order, the written submissions and the other material on record

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

227/- against the interest income as against the income tax refunds of Rs. 43,12,278/-. Its only prayer seeks only net of two sums to be taxed. The CIT(Appeals) detailed reasoning under challenge denying the impugned netting relief reads as follows: “4.3. I have carefully examined the assessment order, the written submissions and the other material on record

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

TDS could be given if the proof was asked for by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but not in case where the assessee had placed the proof on record without filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, documents placed on record with

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

227/- was also received from M/s. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited. Therefore, the letter u/s. 133(6) was issued to state Bank of India in order to know the details of credit made in the bank account of the appellant. The SBI, Durgapur main branch has submitted that aforesaid cheques were received from M/s. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited. A letter

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

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

227/- was also received from M/s. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited. Therefore, the letter u/s. 133(6) was issued to state Bank of India in order to know the details of credit made in the bank account of the appellant. The SBI, Durgapur main branch has submitted that aforesaid cheques were received from M/s. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited. A letter

SUSHILA DEVI JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse on ground No

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2064/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09) Sushila Devi Jaiswal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-48, C/O D J Shah & Co., Kolkata Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Acwpj 6786 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate Revenue By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kolkata In Appeal No.223/Cit(A)-Xxx/Cir-487/2010-11, Dated 03.07.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 29.09.2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,70,339/- & The Same Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act On 23.03.2009. Later On Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making The Disallowance U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act At Rs.5,65,097/- & Disallowance Of Other Charges Rs.40,060/-. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Assessing Officer, The Assessee Filed

section 40(a)(ia) had to be given retrospective application. Similar view was held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ITO Vs Anil Kumar & Co. 31 Taxmann.com .370 (2013) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ashok J Patel (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 227 dated 02/12/2013.” In addition

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

TDS has wrongly mentioned the name of assessee whereas such income was never received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the disallowance so made by the Ld. AO. Since the assessee has duly explained that the assessee has not received such commission and necessary ITA Nos. 2584 to 2588 & A.Ys. 2004­05

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 is not required to be deducted. With regard to the 4th Point mentioned in the show-cause notice about Sundry Creditors, he submitted that ld. Commissioner himself did not call for any details, rather ld. Assessing Officer has verified the audited accounts and gone through the details of Sundry Creditors. 8. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that

AC CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS is not required to be deducted at tax at source u/s 194C of the Act on the basis of examination of books of accounts. We observe that payments were made though munshis/casher and in each case, the payment is less than 20,000/- .Besides the payments are being made in the ordinary course of business and there

LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

227/ CIT(A)-VIII/ Kol/08-09 dated 17.01.2012, 230/CIT(A)-VIII/Kol/06-07 dated 10.08.2011, 225/CIT(A)-VIII/ Kol/08-09 dated 11.08.2011 & 226/CIT(A)-VIII/Kol/08-09 dated 17.01.2012 and appeals by assessee M/s. LMJ Overseas Ltd. are arising out of separate orders of CIT(A)-VIII, Kolkata in Appeal Nos. 229/CIT(A)-VIII/Kol/06-07 dated 19.10.2011 and 202/CIT(A)-VIII/Kol/08-09 dated 28.11.2011. Assessment in respect