THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

240 (SC), this Court after going into the object for the enactment of Section 244(A), held: 4 I.T.A. No. 1427/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 1990-91 The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd "Interest payment is a statutory obligation and non- discretionary in nature to the assessee. In tune with the aforesaid general principle, Section 244A is drafted and enacted

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

240. The expression "amount" in the earlier period of Section 244(1A) refers not only to the tax but al so to the interest; it is a neutral expression and it cannot be limited to the tax paid in pursuant of the order of assessment. Therefore, following the decision of Supreme Court, order passed by the A.O. u/s.154 was held

ITO,WARD-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S B.K.IRON & STEEL (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

240/- which amount was subject to TDS but TDS was not deducted. This finding of Ld. CIT(A) is based on the remand report submitted by the AO after making reference to the EPF and ESI and wage registers. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is based on verification of record, and it does not warrant any interference. Hence

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]

240/- as the assessee was not liable to deduct 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

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

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.

240/- respectively and tax at source was deducted from the said payments at 1% instead of 2% as applicable in the case of a firm. He accordingly held that tax @2% was deducted by the assessee from the 50% of such amount and the balance amounting to Rs. 56,81,220/- was disallowed by him under section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHRADHA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1362/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

240/- made by the Assessing Officer has been rightly deleted by ld CIT(A).That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. C.I T.(A) in deleting the aforesaid addition. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue

BIG BOSS FOODS PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR. 1, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). On the basis of information gathered on records, ld. AO re-opened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22.12.2018 after obtaining the necessary approval u/s 151(1) of the Act from

SHREE DURGA TRADING CO.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO TDS WARD 3(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1243/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Shree Durga Trading Co.,………..………….,…Appellant 67/25, Strand Road, Kolkata, Beadon Street, S.O. Kolkata-700006 [Pan:Aalfs9474P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Tds, Ward-3(3), Kolkata 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Sonel Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborty, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

section 200A/206CB of the Income Tax Act issued by the DCIT, Centralized Processing Cell, TDS determining the demand of Rs.90,240

THE ELECTRO URBAN URBAY CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS of Rs.11,88,194. (6) That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No. (1) above, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow erred in not holing that the CPC, Bengaluru had been wrong in levying Interests of Rs.9,39,240 and Rs.2,63,509 under sections

M. N. DASTUR & CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, for the statistical purpose, both the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

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

Section 201(1A) 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeals)-24 has erred in confirming that there is a short deduction of Rs.27580 in the fourth quarter of Financial Year 2009-10. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add alter or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal at or before the hearing

M. N. DASTUR & CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, for the statistical purpose, both the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

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

Section 201(1A) 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeals)-24 has erred in confirming that there is a short deduction of Rs.27580 in the fourth quarter of Financial Year 2009-10. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add alter or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal at or before the hearing

A.C.I.T CIR - 1,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. SUBHASISH ACHARYYA, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 40A(3). “ 1 ITA No.1050 & CO No.75/K/2013-B-AM Subhasish Acharyya 3. In the C.O ( No.75/K/2013 arising out of ITA No. 1050/K/2013 A.Y 2008-09), the assessee has raised the following ground:- 1) For that on the facts of the case the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in estimating the net Profit from Contract business @ 8% of Gross Receipts

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ATC LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1619/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-14(1),Kolkata -Vs- M/S Atc Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aahca 3020 A ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 57/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1619/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S Atc Logistics Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-14(1),Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 3020 A ] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

TDS could be claimed in the year in which the corresponding income is offered to tax by the assessee. No finding in this regard is given by both AO and the ld CITA for better appreciation of the facts. In our considered opinion, this requires factual verification by the ld AO. In these facts and circumstances, we deem

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

240/- as the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on payment made for transport charges, therefore, the said disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong in holding that the assessee was covered by Section

ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

Tds- Net Amount Date of of Bill Bill AMAOUNT Deducted Paid payment raised GTFS- Service 01/07/20 132,360,000 120,000,000 12,360,000. 13,236,000. 119,124,000 01-7- HEIGHT/SC Charge 10 ,00 ,00 00 00 .00 10,02- /10-11/01 s 07- 10,03- 07-10 GTFS- Service 10/08/20 88,240

ITO, WARD-2(3), DURGAPUR, KOLKATA vs. M/S HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Height Insurance Ward-2(3), R/No.10/21, Services Ltd., Room 7Th Floor, Aayakar No.319,3Rd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Kamalaya Centre, 156A, Chowringhee Square, Lenin Sarani, Kolakta-13 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacch 0943 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2016 In Case No. 188/Cit(A)-14/Wd-1(1)/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Solitary Grievance Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive Section 37 R.W 40(A)(Ia) Disallowances / Addition Of ₹66,18,00,000/- Pertaining To Assessee’S Service Charges Paid To M/S Golden Trust Financial Services (Gtfs) Hereafter For Having Acted As Its Agent. It’S Next Two Averments Are That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Examining Assessee’S Exclusive Method Of Accounting In Service Tax Receivable On Output Services As Against Inclusive Method Of Service Tax

Tds- Net Amount Date of of Bill Bill AMAOUNT Deducted Paid payment raised GTFS- Service 01/07/20 132,360,000 120,000,000 12,360,000. 13,236,000. 119,124,000 01-7- HEIGHT/SC Charge 10 ,00 ,00 00 00 .00 10,02- /10-11/01 s 07- 10,03- 07-10 GTFS- Service 10/08/20 88,240

M/S VARRSANA ISPAT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE CIT, TDS KOLKATA-24, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS Wd-59(4))/CIT(A)-24 Kol. Page 2 respectively, involving proceedings u/s201(1) r.w. Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It appears at the outset that the assessee’s instant four appeal(s) challenge correctness of both the lower authorities identical action raising