SAIKAT CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO 61(1), KOLKATA

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

TDS due to mismatch in Form 26AS and ITR.\n20.03.2024\nCIT(A)-22 dismissed the appeal against Section 139(9) notice as\nnon-maintainable due to procedural issues.\n19.04.2024\nAssessee filed appeal against Section 143(1) order before\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).\n04.07.2024\nAppeal filed against 143(1) dismissed by NFAC\n02.09.2024\nAppeal filed before ITAT against above order

M/S NEW MODERN CONSTRUCTION,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WD-3, SURI, BIRBHUM

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

section 194I of the Act. 27. Before the CIT-A the assessee contended that the said contract was awarded to M/s. Pobi Technologies & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The said concern, M/s. Pobi Technologies & Constructions Pvt. Ltd deducted hire charges out of the bill raised by the said concern. Before him the assessee contended that it had no scope to affect

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

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

248/- where make available clause is provided in the treaty. The Learned CITA also listed out the payments made to various parties in various tax jurisdictions amounting to Rs. 59,82,996/- where make available clause was not provided in the tax treaty. However, he restricted the addition to Rs. 42,23,523/- being the remaining portion of the disallowance

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

248/- where make available clause is provided in the treaty. The Learned CITA also listed out the payments made to various parties in various tax jurisdictions amounting to Rs. 59,82,996/- where make available clause was not provided in the tax treaty. However, he restricted the addition to Rs. 42,23,523/- being the remaining portion of the disallowance

ITO, WARD-1(4), BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. SHRI BISHNU GHOSH, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

248 ITR 216 (SC) wherein it has been held that there must be a contract between the persons responsible for making payment and the sub-contractor in order to attract section 194C of the Act and that the provision of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be read in isolation without making out a case that the payment

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing any specific order for such charging of interest in complete disregard of the judgment dated 6th January, 2012 passed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhunser Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 396 of 2005. 10. That the appellant craves leave

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-33(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KWALITY CONSTRUTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

248 ITR 216 has laid down the conditions precedent for attracting the provisions of section 194C, viz. (i) there must be a contract must be for carrying out of any work, (iii) the work is to be carried through the contractor, (iv) the consideration for the contract should exceed the amount fixed by section 194C and (v) that the payment

ITO,WARD-59(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BAHUBALLI INTERNATIONAL LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

TDS should have been made u/s.194J instead of 194C of the Act. According to the CIT(A) the payments made by the assessee for testing and inspection of material cannot be described as technical consultancy and therefore provisions of section 194J of the Act are not attracted. We find from the explanation to section 194J(1) of the Act, which

ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA AHMEDABAD CARRIERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

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

248 ITR 216) affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court (Supra). In CIT v. Esskay Construction Co. (267 ITR 618) it is held that once a finding has been recorded that there was no contract between the assessee as its sister concerns, there shall be no applicability of section 194C( 2) of 1961 Act. 16. Reference

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

248/- towards gratuity fund maintained with LIC. However, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the gratuity fund has not been approved by the IT Department. Therefore, the same was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 23. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

248/- towards gratuity fund maintained with LIC. However, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the gratuity fund has not been approved by the IT Department. Therefore, the same was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 23. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

248/- towards gratuity fund maintained with LIC. However, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the gratuity fund has not been approved by the IT Department. Therefore, the same was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 23. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

248/- towards gratuity fund maintained with LIC. However, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the gratuity fund has not been approved by the IT Department. Therefore, the same was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 23. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

248/- towards gratuity fund maintained with LIC. However, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the gratuity fund has not been approved by the IT Department. Therefore, the same was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 23. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

248/- towards gratuity fund maintained with LIC. However, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the gratuity fund has not been approved by the IT Department. Therefore, the same was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 23. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

248/- towards gratuity fund maintained with LIC. However, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the gratuity fund has not been approved by the IT Department. Therefore, the same was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 23. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

248/- towards gratuity fund maintained with LIC. However, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the gratuity fund has not been approved by the IT Department. Therefore, the same was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 23. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that

SUDARSHAN PANJA,HALDIA vs. DCIT, CIR. 27(1), HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sudarshan Panja ………. Appellant (Pan: Akbpp6220A)) Vs. Dcit, Circle-27(1), Haldia ………… Respondent Appearances By: N O N E Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.08.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 08.02.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S. 263/143(3) Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-27(1), Haldia Dated 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

section of 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, "the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited". The assessee has received Rs. 21,16,248 as unsecured loan received through bank account of Petrochem Engineering Construction