M/S. HOOGHLY DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 23(), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

26A under rule 31ACB of the I. T Rule 1962. It is to consider that liability to deduct TDS always come first on deductor whereas declaring income in return by the deductee is subsequently done. Thus, it seems that to streamline Assessment Years : 2016-2017 to 2018-2019 M/s. Hooghly District Central Cooperative Bank Limited effective and smooth functioning

M/S. HOOGHLY DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 23(), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

26A under rule 31ACB of the I. T Rule 1962. It is to consider that liability to deduct TDS always come first on deductor whereas declaring income in return by the deductee is subsequently done. Thus, it seems that to streamline Assessment Years : 2016-2017 to 2018-2019 M/s. Hooghly District Central Cooperative Bank Limited effective and smooth functioning

UNION BANK OF INDIA,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(2), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

26A as per rule 31ACB,despite the fact that interest income of those customers were more than the taxable income, therefore, he declared the appellant bank as an assessee in default as per the provision of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act and levied a total demand of Rs.1,71,540/-. During the hearing of the appeal

UNION BANK OF INDIA,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(2), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

26A as per rule 31ACB,despite the fact that interest income of those customers were more than the taxable income, therefore, he declared the appellant bank as an assessee in default as per the provision of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act and levied a total demand of Rs.1,71,540/-. During the hearing of the appeal

SELEHIUM TRADING PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) A.L. Saini, Am] I.Ta No. 1306/Kol/2018 A.Y 2012-13 Selehium Trading Pvt. Limited Vs. P.C.I.T-1, Kolkata Pan: Aadcs 7717E Appellant Respondent Date Of Hearing 09.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2020 For The Appellant Shri Miraj D.Shah, Ld.Ar For The Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, Ld.Dr

section 263 of the Act, which according to the assessee is without satisfying the conditions precedent as prescribed by statute. 4. Brief facts of the case as noted by the ld. PCIT is that the assessee company filed its return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 17,35,145/-, which was scrutinised u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide

ARYA ROADWAYS CO.PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA [NEW ITO, WARD - 12(1), KOLKATA], KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2010-11 Arya Roadways Co Pvt V/S. Ito Ward-3(3), [New Ltd., Tivoli Court, Block-B, Ito Ward-12(1)] Aayakar Bhavana, 7Th Flat-93, 1C, Ballygunge Circular Road, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 019 Square, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaeca 9139 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Brijesh Kr. Singh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Singh, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata’S Order Dated 21.02.2017 Passed In Case No.385/Cit(A)-15/15-16/3(3)/R&T/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Sides. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Two Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal. It Firstly Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing / Adding Its Freight Charges Of ₹11,68,46,218/- As Well As Loading / Unloading Charges Of ₹10,87,385/- Paid To Various Parties On

TDS (in Rs) 1 Jai Gopal 5,16,67,761.00 Pariwaahan 2 Cargo Liners Pvt Ltd 2,99,34,500.00 3 Jagannath 2,30,45,272.00 Enterprise 4 R.M. logistics 1,21,98,685.00 Invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) AO has disallowed Rs.11,68,46,218/-. In appeal proceedings, AR has submitted Form 26A

M/S ABHOY CHARAN BAKSHI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] S.A.No.08/Kol/2016 (A/O Ita No.1492/Kol/2015) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Abhoy Charan Bakshi -Vs.- D. C.I.T., Circle-27, Kolkata Haldia [Pan : Aaefm9711E) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Abhoy Charan Bakshi -Vs.- A. C.I.T., Circle-27, Kolkata Haldia [Pan : Aaefm9711E) (Respondent) (Appellant)

TDS Sl.No. Name of the Nature of Amount PAN of the AO of the Persons to payment paid (Rs.) payees payees Whom payment Was made by the assessee 1. Ananda Sankar Job charges 18,80,188 BUKPS3454F Ward Angul Sahoo 2. Chitaranjan Job charges 2,75,835 AGUPD4758JWard Angul Dwirbedy 3. Prasanta Kumar Job charges 5,73,796 DHAPS6717N Ward

MADHU REANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-II(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

TDS was deduction at source.\n\n04. The facts in brief are that this is second round of litigation before the Tribunal. In the first round, the appeal of the assessee was allowed by Id. CIT (A) on this issue by giving a clear-cut finding that the recipient of the said interest M/s Srei Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has offered

KAZI ZAINAL ABSAR,ASANSOL vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS was confirmed as the assessee did not file any evidence despite sufficient opportunities being granted in support of the claim that section 201 of the Act was not attracted or the provisions of section 194C and 194-I were not applicable. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal

SUN BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is tr

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble, Kz) Assessment Years: 2012-13 Sun Biotechnology Ltd.....………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant 21A, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 8587 R] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7(2) Kolkata…………….......….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 2Nd, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 2Nd, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp, Kz:-

26A 21) We are attaching the Form 26ASfromAsst year 2014-15 to 2018- -19, wherein your honour shall find that no such fraudulent TDS was deducted by opposite group and honour shall find that no such fraudulent TDS was deducted by opposite group and honour shall find that no such fraudulent TDS was deducted by opposite group and trespassers

ASSOCIATE ENGINEERS,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-27(1), HALDIA

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

TDS on certain payments. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the respective payees have duly taken into account the aforesaid payments received by the assessee in their income-tax return. He, in this respect, has relied upon provisions of proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with section 201 to submit that

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,MIDNAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

26A certifying that it had duly included the amount it received from the assessee herein in its return of income. In such as scenario, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO (TDS) to verify as to whether all the payees have included

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. DCIT, (TDS), CIR-59, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

26A certifying that it had duly included the amount it received from the assessee herein in its return of income. In such as scenario, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO (TDS) to verify as to whether all the payees have included

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,MIDNAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

26A certifying that it had duly included the amount it received from the assessee herein in its return of income. In such as scenario, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO (TDS) to verify as to whether all the payees have included

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,MIDNAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

26A certifying that it had duly included the amount it received from the assessee herein in its return of income. In such as scenario, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO (TDS) to verify as to whether all the payees have included

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,MIDNAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

26A certifying that it had duly included the amount it received from the assessee herein in its return of income. In such as scenario, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO (TDS) to verify as to whether all the payees have included

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,MIDNAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

26A certifying that it had duly included the amount it received from the assessee herein in its return of income. In such as scenario, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO (TDS) to verify as to whether all the payees have included

PBN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

TDS if there is no tax liability in the hands of the loan creditors. This law had been accepted by CBDT in its Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29.1.1997. Subsequently, recognized by the legislators by inserting proviso in sub-section (1) of section 201 by Finance Act, 2012. Thus, the settled position of law is that if the deductee / payee