M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during the course

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWAJIT GUHA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

TDS. In this connection we rely in the judgment of Hon’ble Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Rinku Mallick ITAT no. 96 of 2012, GA No. 1368 of 2012 where it was held as under:- “We have heard the learned Counsel Smt. Sinha [Das de], appearing for the appellant, and we have gone through

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 28(iv) of the Act by way of crediting the net consideration in the audited accounts and claiming the credit of TDS on the 'grossed up' amount. The certificates of GRSE totalled to Rs. 28,126,740 whereas the Assessee has accounted for only Rs. 24,393,588 in the audited profit and loss accounts. Therefore the difference

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 28(iv) of the Act by way of crediting the net consideration in the audited accounts and claiming the credit of TDS on the 'grossed up' amount. The certificates of GRSE totalled to Rs. 28,126,740 whereas the Assessee has accounted for only Rs. 24,393,588 in the audited profit and loss accounts. Therefore the difference

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section workable. The insertion of second proviso was explained by Memorandum Explaining The provision in Finance Bill, 2012, reported in 342 ITR (Statutes)234 at 260 & 261, which reads as under:- "E.RATIONALIZATION OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE (TDS

THE PRINCIPAL, SALDIHA COLLEGE,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), TDS, BANKURA & PURULIA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2455/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Principal, Saldiha College Vs. Ito, Ward – 4(4), Tds Bankura & Purulia Saldiha, Bankura – 722 173. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaajs 5748 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Durgapur Dated 30.07.2018 Passed In Case No.161/Cit(A)/Dgp/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 200A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

section 234E. (Para 20). 13. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court, it is held that the AO CPC was entitled and was very much within his rights to levy late fee u/s 234 in intimation u/s 200A of the Act. The appeal is, therefore, decided against the appellant and is treated as ‘dismissed’.” 4. Learned

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS for the Assessment Year 2008-09. VIII. FOR that the assessee denies liability to pay tax computed and interest under Section 234

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

TDS by the deductor has been held in favour of assessee by holding that once tax is deducted then the liability resulting from non deposit of tax so deducted by the deductor cannot be fastened on the deductee (assessee). We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jagsit Singh (supra) wherein

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

234\n214,695,681\nSCHEDULE \"D\" Unsecured Loan\nPARTICULARS\nAs At 31st\nMarch-11\nAs At 31st\nMarch-10\n₹\n₹\nFrom Companies\n50,000,000\n10,000,000\nInterest Accrued & due thereon\n3,277,477\n1,080,000\nTotal\n53,277,477\n11,080,000\n4. Ld.AR further drew our attention to page No.37 of the paper book which

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. ASHIRBAD REAL ESTATE & TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee in CO 1/2012 is dismissed and revenue appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09 (Appellant ) (Respondent) A.C.I.T., Circle-1, -Versus- Ashirbad Real Estate & Asansol Transport Pvt.Ltd. Burdwan (Pan:Aaeca 8075 C) C.O.No.1/Kol/2012 A/O Ita No.1591/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ashirbad Real Estate & -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Transport Pvt.Ltd., Burdwan Asansol (Pan Aaeca 8075 C) (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Cit (Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Aravind Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In Appeal No142/Cit(A)/Asl/Range-1/Asl/10-11 Dated 27.09.2011 For The Asst Year 2008-09 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

TDS on amount paid to deductee and, in turn, deductee also hasn't offered to tax income embedded in such amount. The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided under section 271C. and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) isn't attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when

ABHISHEK KANORIA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WARD 3(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 843/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Abhishek Kanoria,……………………...………Appellant 2, Mayurbhanj Road, Mominpur, Kolkata-700023, West Bengal [Pan:Afnpk5326F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………….…………...Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 17, 2025 O R D E R

section 154. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) opined that this issue cannot be adjudicated upon in the present appeal, and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised the following issues:- (1) For that the adjustment made in the order u/s 154/143(1) of the Income

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

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS u/s 195 of the Act then all these expenses are to be allowed. Accordingly we restore this issue to the file of AO to examine and decide accordingly. The ground no. 3 is allowed for statistical purpose. 16. Issue raised in ground no. 4 by the assessee is against the confirmation

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS u/s 195 of the Act then all these expenses are to be allowed. Accordingly we restore this issue to the file of AO to examine and decide accordingly. The ground no. 3 is allowed for statistical purpose. 16. Issue raised in ground no. 4 by the assessee is against the confirmation

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

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS u/s 195 of the Act then all these expenses are to be allowed. Accordingly we restore this issue to the file of AO to examine and decide accordingly. The ground no. 3 is allowed for statistical purpose. 16. Issue raised in ground no. 4 by the assessee is against the confirmation

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS u/s 195 of the Act then all these expenses are to be allowed. Accordingly we restore this issue to the file of AO to examine and decide accordingly. The ground no. 3 is allowed for statistical purpose. 16. Issue raised in ground no. 4 by the assessee is against the confirmation

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

234 ITR 828 (AAR) is not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case as the AAR only dealt with the applicability of section 115JA of the Act on foreign companies. The term 'company' has been defined in section 5(d) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to mean any company as defined in section 3 of Companies

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Patton International Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O Jain Vinod K & Income-Tax, Kolkata-1. Associates, 41A, A. J. C. Vs Bose Road, Diamond . Prestige Nirman, 6Th Floor, Suite No.613, Kolkata- 700017 (Pan: Aabcp7901M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS of Rs.1.36 lakh was made only on commission on sale of scrap of Rs.77.17 lakh. Omission to do so resulted in underassessment of income by Rs. 290.40 lakh (30% Rs.9.68 crore) having tax effect of Rs.1,33,66,717/-. (iii) Examination of assessment record for the AY 2017-18 revealed that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.7.50 crore