ITO, WD-1(2), BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S CEMCO MARKETING, BURDWAN

Appeals are dismissed

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

TDS had to be deducted on CF & Transportation Charges and the said disallowance therefore is not upheld. 3. For that on the fact and circumstances of the case, it is begged before your honour to note that the Ld. A.D has erred in disallowing Rs.95,05,125.00 on account of secondary transport and assessee firm handles cement from the railway

GOGHAT THANA LARGE SIZED PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1872 /Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Goghat Thana Large Sized Primary -Vs- Acit, Circle-1, Hooghly Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd. [Pan: Aaalg 0062 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 4 5 M/s Goghat Thana

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

section 142 of the Act, as explained above, therefore order passed by Assessing Officer should be quashed. The ld Counsel further submitted before us that it is also the matter of fact that both the projects undertaken by the assessee were Government projects and were duly monitored by the authorities who have given the said projects to the assessee

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

section 142 of the Act, as explained above, therefore order passed by Assessing Officer should be quashed. The ld Counsel further submitted before us that it is also the matter of fact that both the projects undertaken by the assessee were Government projects and were duly monitored by the authorities who have given the said projects to the assessee

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

TDS, disallowance of expenditure ought not to be made if the payee has taken such sum as part of its gross receipt/income and paid taxes thereon. In the instant case, sum has been paid to M/s. Tata Capital Limited and one cannot doubt that such receipts have not been offered to tax by Tata Capital Limited or not forming

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

BMC ELECTROPLAST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bmc Electroplast Pvt. Ltd…..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 130/22, Bakrahat Road, B S Industrial Estate, Hanspukur, South 24 Parganas, Kol – 700104. [Pan: Aabcb0407E] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Rip Das, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Of The Cit(Appeal), Addl/Jcit(A), Agra (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This Case, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2017-18 On 04/11/2017 Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs. 1,60,82,362/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (Cass). The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Determining The Total Loss At Rs. 65,20,241/- After Making Certain Disallowances As Follows: Bmc Electroplast Pvt. Ltd A) Disallowance Of Excess Claim Of Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Amounting To Rs. 56,73,734/-

section 143(3) of the Act determining the total loss at Rs. 65,20,241/- after making certain disallowances as follows: BMC Electroplast Pvt. Ltd a) Disallowance of excess claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) amounting to Rs. 56,73,734/- b) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 33,44,625/- for non-deduction of TDS

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

241 (Mumbai - Trib.)[26-09-2025] wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held as under:- “12. We find that section 2(47) of the Act uses the word "or" instead of "and". Therefore, all the conditions as laid down in the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act are not required to be cumulatively satisfied, and even

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

TDS provisions are not applicable in respect of the aforesaid payments. The ld AO observed that the aforesaid payments squarely falls under section 33 A.Yrs.2011-12 194J of the Act in as much as these directors had not offered the commission and sitting fees income under the head ‘income from salary’ in their returns of income and instead they

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

TDS provisions are not applicable in respect of the aforesaid payments. The ld AO observed that the aforesaid payments squarely falls under section 33 A.Yrs.2011-12 194J of the Act in as much as these directors had not offered the commission and sitting fees income under the head ‘income from salary’ in their returns of income and instead they

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MERCURY CAR RENTALS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly 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]

sections based on erroneous understanding of law or under ignorance of law and, therefore, the ITS data has reported erroneously income under the heads of rent and professional fees. It was also brought to our notice that the assessee does not own any property which could fetch rental income which would be apparent on a perusal of the fixed asset

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

241 ITR 482 / 110 taxman 511 that retrospective withdrawal and / or cancellation of certificate will have no effect upon the assessee which has acted upon it when it was valid and operative. In the instant case, on the basis of valid certificate issued by the appropriate authority the ICI R & T Centre, Thane has continued the research work

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

241 ITR 482 / 110 taxman 511 that retrospective withdrawal and / or cancellation of certificate will have no effect upon the assessee which has acted upon it when it was valid and operative. In the instant case, on the basis of valid certificate issued by the appropriate authority the ICI R & T Centre, Thane has continued the research work