KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3).” 9. From the perusal of section 244A(1A) of the Act, we note that additional interest under this section is attracted only if the conditions of section 153(5) of the Act are breached. Therefore, from the perusal of section 153(5) of the Act, it emerges that

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3).” 9. From the perusal of section 244A(1A) of the Act, we note that additional interest under this section is attracted only if the conditions of section 153(5) of the Act are breached. Therefore, from the perusal of section 153(5) of the Act, it emerges that

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3).” 9. From the perusal of section 244A(1A) of the Act, we note that additional interest under this section is attracted only if the conditions of section 153(5) of the Act are breached. Therefore, from the perusal of section 153(5) of the Act, it emerges that

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3).” 9. From the perusal of section 244A(1A) of the Act, we note that additional interest under this section is attracted only if the conditions of section 153(5) of the Act are breached. Therefore, from the perusal of section 153(5) of the Act, it emerges that

SOMA RANI GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

TDS on such payment, it is necessary to look at the provisions of section 194C)1) of the Act. The said provision reads as follows: ”194C. Payments to contractors and sub-contractors.— [(1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-11(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 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 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

TDS was less than 10% of the total tax liability. Thereafter, on 06.06.2022, assessee moved a rectification application and one of the point of its application was that the assessee is entitled to substantial MAT credit brought forward from earlier years. The details of such MAT credit of Rs.33,08,57,877/- is mentioned below: 9. On going through

M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

264 is passed by the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 but before the 1st day of April, 2011, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "one year", the words "nine months" had been substituted: 6. A plain reading of the above provision suggests that

DEEPAK KUMAR TODI,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deepak Kumar Todi..............…..............….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…..…….......Appellant 697, Salt Lake Block-A Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Acypt 5218 D] Vs. Ddit, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Kolkata...............……......…….....….…............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri N.B. Som, Addl. Cit D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 16Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 16Th, 2019 Order Per S.S. Godara, Jm :-

TDS amounting to Naira 250000 from his salary and bonus in Nigeria which stood credited to the said Government account. It is therefore not a case of double non taxation as argued at the Revenue’s behest. It thereafter transpires that the hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in the case of Utanka Roy vs. DIT(supra) holds that

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

264 and section 154 (subject to built in limitations) can be considered by appellant for suitable remedy. Considering all these I decline to adjudicate ground 7.0” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us on the following additional ground:- “1. For that on the facts of the case

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. A.K. INDUSTRIES ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2009-10

TDS u/s. 194C of the Act on various head(s) of payments. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as follows:- “4. "ल"खत ""ब"ट / Written submission The A/R of the appellant submitted written submission, to substantiate its claim, which is re-produced as under: "We write the above references, wherein the A. O. has instructed

PARAMARTH SADHAK SANGH ,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(E) CIR -2/NOW ITO(EXEM), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Paramarth Sadhak Sangh……..………………....…………..……………...……..….…….........Appellant P-113, New Raipur Road (E) Kolkata – 700 084 [Pan : Aaatp 4767 F] Vs. Adit (E), Circle-2/ Now I.T.O. (Exem), Ward-14, Kolkata….……………............Respondent

264 of the Act. Under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the intimation is deemed to be a notice of demand under section 156 of the Act. Except intimation, no other order is contemplated under section 143(l)( a). There is a distinction between an order of assessment and a notice of demand. Under section 246 also, a clear

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

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

264 ITR 435 (Del) the Division Bench was not convinced that merely because moneys could be identified and traced through banking channels the genuineness of the Gift in question stood established. This is obviously because an assessed can scarcely be heard to say that he does not know all particulars pertaining to the donor. Thereafter, the same dialectic lead

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

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

264 ITR 435 (Del) the Division Bench was not convinced that merely because moneys could be identified and traced through banking channels the genuineness of the Gift in question stood established. This is obviously because an assessed can scarcely be heard to say that he does not know all particulars pertaining to the donor. Thereafter, the same dialectic lead

VISHAL PACHISIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-44(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

264/- on which the employer has duly deducted the TDS at source. However, out of the TDS deducted, a sum of Rs. 3,96,700/- was not deposited in the Government treasury and therefore, the same was not reflected in Form 26AS. When the assessee filed the return of income after claiming the credit for TDS ,the same was denied

EIH LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the order passed by the Learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS officer to look into the alleged violations, if any, on the same and the Learned AO cannot resort to make any disallowance of expenditure on that count on an estimated basis. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co vs CIT reported

ITO, WD-(IT), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EMAMI PAPER MILLS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.642/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2012-2013) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Emami Paper Mills Ltd., (International Taxation), 687, Anandapur, E.M.Bypass, Ward, Kolkata, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700107 Room No. 215 Aayakar Bhavan Poorva, 110 Shantipalli,Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 1428 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri N.B.Som, Jcit Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Kumar Patodia, Fca सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-2013, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata, In Appeal No.111/Cit(A)-22/Kol/14-13, Dated 20.01.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 201(1)/1A Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company, M/S.Emami Paper Mills Limited, Hereafter Called As ‘Deductor’ Has Remitted Some Amount To A Non-Resident Company Of Poland Without Deducting Taxes. Show Cause Notice U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Issued To The Deductor. In Response, The Deductor Company Submitted M/S Emami Paper Mills Ltd.

TDS had been deducted, despite the fact that the job performed by M/s POL-INOWEX SA of Poland is highly technical and skill oriented and included ‘provision of service of technical and other personnel’. The Ld. DR also pointed out that contract between M/s POL-INOWEX SA and assessee is a contract for technical services because the nature

MD. HASSAN IMAM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-53(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1211/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Md. Hassan Imami -Vs- Ito, Ward-53(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 5821 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 25.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. For that the Ld. Appellate Authority did not consider the Remand Report dated 27.01.2016 of the Ld. Assessing Officer and disallowed the part addition

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR RUIA. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR- 30, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1197/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Kumar Ruia…..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant 5, Sunny Park, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Acnpr3823K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-30, Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating Non-Credits Of Tds Of Rs.95,80,949/- Out Of Total Tds Claim Of Rs.2,18,82,526/-. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Salary Income & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.6,52,52,390/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Vide Order Dated 17.12.2016 At A Total Income Of Rs.6,86,66,708/-. The Assessee

264/- on which the employer has duly deducted the TDS at source. However, out of the TDS deducted, a sum of Rs. 3,96,700/- was not deposited in the Government treasury and therefore, the same was not reflected in Form 26AS. When the assessee filed the return of income after claiming the credit for TDS ,the same was denied