BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

TDS deducted for the Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

TDS deducted for the Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

TDS deducted for the Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

TDS deducted for the Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

TDS deducted for the Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

TDS deducted for the Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

TDS deducted for the Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

TDS deducted for the Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

27,500/- each, and the amount\nwas below the threshold limit of ₹ 180,000/- for deduction of TDS and\nPage | 16\nITA No.: 974, 975 & 2237/KOL/2024\n Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14\nRaiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.\ntherefore, no TDS was required to be made. The Ld. AO added the amount\nas the shares of each co-owner

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 194H of Act. 27. Further, the Appellant has provided the discount/incentives to the distributors/retailers and the same is duly credited to the account of the parties. Since the incentives/ discount paid has been duly credited to name of the respective parties instead of any suspense account the said incentives/ discount given to parties cannot be held to be liable

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 194H of Act. 27. Further, the Appellant has provided the discount/incentives to the distributors/retailers and the same is duly credited to the account of the parties. Since the incentives/ discount paid has been duly credited to name of the respective parties instead of any suspense account the said incentives/ discount given to parties cannot be held to be liable

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

27,500/- each, and the amount\nwas below the threshold limit of ₹ 180,000/- for deduction of TDS and\nPage | 17\nITA No.: 974, 975 & 2237/KOL/2024\n Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14\nRaiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.\ntherefore, no TDS was required to be made. The Ld. AO added the amount\nas the shares of each co-owner

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

27,500/- each, and the amount was below the threshold limit of ₹ 180,000/- for deduction of TDS and ITA No.: 974, 975 & 2237/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. therefore, no TDS was required to be made. The Ld. AO added the amount as the shares of each co-owner was not specified

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

27. The ld. DR submitted before us that the CIT(A) has not seen that the assessee was in the business of advertisement and not development of infrastructure facility. His further submission was that he has also not examined that the quantification of the amount of eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. According to him a part

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (TDS) CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194H on the payment made to the distributors of post paid connections but the same is not being done in the case of prepaid distributors. 3. The relationship between the assessee and distributors of prepaid connections is not on principal to principal basis essentially but there exists an agency agreement between them as evident from the several clauses

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (TDS) CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194H on the payment made to the distributors of post paid connections but the same is not being done in the case of prepaid distributors. 3. The relationship between the assessee and distributors of prepaid connections is not on principal to principal basis essentially but there exists an agency agreement between them as evident from the several clauses

VODAFONE SOUTH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (TDS) CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194H on the payment made to the distributors of post paid connections but the same is not being done in the case of prepaid distributors. 3. The relationship between the assessee and distributors of prepaid connections is not on principal to principal basis essentially but there exists an agency agreement between them as evident from the several clauses

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE SOUTH LTD.), KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194H on the payment made to the distributors of post paid connections but the same is not being done in the case of prepaid distributors. 3. The relationship between the assessee and distributors of prepaid connections is not on principal to principal basis essentially but there exists an agency agreement between them as evident from the several clauses