DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 622/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd...............................……………………………….........................Appellant Bengal Eco Entelligent Park (Techna), Tower – 1, Block – Em, Plot No. – 3, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] D.C.I.T. Cir 11(1)...................…………………………………………......................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 I.T.A. No. 609/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 D.C.I.T. Cir 11(1)...................………………………………………….........................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd...............................………………………………...................Respondent Bengal Eco Entelligent Park (Techna), Tower – 1, Block – Em, Plot No. – 3, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri H Chakraborty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 01, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2018 Order Shri P.M. Jagtapthese Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 622/K/2017 & The Other Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 609/K/2017, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 30.01.2017. 2. The Issue Involved In Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee’S Appeal Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 57,53,60,000/- Made By The A.O. & 2 I.T.A. Nos. 622 & 609/Kol/2017 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Unexplained Excess Consumption Of Raw Material (Nahptha).

section 234D, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee company had declared book profit of Rs. 285.01 crores under section115JB for A,Y. 2006-07 and the tax payable thereon at Rs. 23.98 crores. As the assessee- company had paid advance tax and TDS

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

TDS to the extent of Rs 65,187. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, the AO erred in levying interest under section 234D

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

TDS to the extent of Rs 65,187. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, the AO erred in levying interest under section 234D

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, II-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 196/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1), Kolkata…..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 I.T.A. No. 295/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1),Kolkata……….Appellant 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….……………………………………………………………….Respondent Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 09Th, 2017 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153(1) & 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Filed A Cross-Appeal, Challenging The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’).

section 2348 and 234D of the Act of Rs9,521,808 and Rs 720,121 respectively. 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO in the impugned order has erred in adding back the TDS

DCIT, (IT), CIR-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 196/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1), Kolkata…..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 I.T.A. No. 295/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1),Kolkata……….Appellant 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….……………………………………………………………….Respondent Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 09Th, 2017 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153(1) & 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Filed A Cross-Appeal, Challenging The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’).

section 2348 and 234D of the Act of Rs9,521,808 and Rs 720,121 respectively. 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO in the impugned order has erred in adding back the TDS

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

234D after giving effect to the appellate order. 6. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- VI/Kol has erred in law as well as on facts of the case is not allowing sufficient opportunity of being heard resulting non- filing of written submission by the appellant which is not correct. 7. For that the appellant craves leave

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]

Section 234D has been levied and thereby determined an aggregate tax liability of INR 2,312,214. Further, after allowing the credit of TDS

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)

234D and 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as per the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessee submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Assessee desires leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections, at any time before

NARESH ANCHALIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 32(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS credit of Rs.86,894/-, then the same may be granted to the assessee after hearing him. Charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D

MCNALLY BHARAT INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”) (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) is erroneous on facts and bad in law. Corporate Tax 2. Disallowance of rent expenses 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred

CARGO HANDLING CORPORATION ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

TDS does not attract to the expenses of transport charges. Pursuant to insertion to the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, the payees have shown the receipt of amount in their income tax return then the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) does not apply, as such his finding

M/S CARGO HINDLING CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-28(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

TDS on payment made for transport charges, therefore, the said disallowance u/s. 40a(ia) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 7. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.LT.(A) was wrong in holding that the assessee was covered by Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, therefore, the disallowance made u/s. 40a(ia) amounting

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

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.74/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata

TDS, which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in disallowance of u/s. 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 16,85,08,240/- as the expenses were paid during the year under section 40(a)(ia), although section 40(a)(ia) is only applicable to amount

AMBO EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN, CIR-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

TDS on payment made for job work charges, therefore, the said disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.” 3.2. We have heard the rival submissions. The ld. AR prayed for setting aside of this issue to the file of the ld. AO in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

KEVENTER AGRO LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS by Rs.46,829/-which was erroneously disallowed in the assessment order without assigning any reason whatsoever. 7. That, therefore, as the impugned appellate order u/s 250 of the Act dated 12/02/2024 on the above issues suffers from illegality and is devoid of any merit, non-adjudication of the grounds against charging of interest u/s 234D, 234B & 234C