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

TDS was made on the amount of\n₹11,50,213/- and deposited by WBSCB on behalf of the appellant, there\nwas no violation of section 194J of the Act and no penalty u/s 271C

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 28(iv) of the Act. Hence, the said failure corresponds to a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the AO had rightly initiated a penalty u/s 271C of the Act as the assessee had failed to make TDS

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 28(iv) of the Act. Hence, the said failure corresponds to a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the AO had rightly initiated a penalty u/s 271C of the Act as the assessee had failed to make TDS

ANUNOY MUKHERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy Mukherjee Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Vs (4), Durgapur Near Hdfc Bank Bamunara Kanksa Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Cydpm3295A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & Shri Rohitash Gupta, C.A. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/07/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of One (1) Day In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Only Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act At Rs.1,36,214/-, Levied For Not Getting The Books Of Account Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act.

TDS of Rs.30,896/-. The case selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason of cash deposit during the year. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer on going through the details of bank account held by the assessee with HDFC Bank observed that cash of Rs.1,48,19,170/- was deposited

M/S MUKHERJEE ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 33(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 M/S Mukherjee Enterprise, V/S. Income Tax Officer, 63/4, Harish Chatterjee Ward-33(3), 10B, Street, Kolkta-700 025 Middleton Row, [Pan No.Aaffm 1374 C] Kolkata - 700071 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS and maintenance of Books of Account as accompanying the Return (excepting enhancing rate of Net Profit on estimate; the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in law in upholding the order ITA No.401/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 M/s Mukherjee Enterprise v. ITO, Wd.33-(3) Kol. Page 3 U/s 271A rejecting app’s explanation for failure to produce the books

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

TDS was made on the amount of\n₹11,50,213/- and deposited by WBSCB on behalf of the appellant, there\nwas no violation of section 194J of the Act and no penalty u/s 271C

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

TDS was made on the amount of ₹11,50,213/- and deposited by WBSCB on behalf of the appellant, there was no violation of section 194J of the Act and no penalty u/s 271C

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HALDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITTY, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the are dismissed

TDS), Kolkata..............................…………………………………........Appellant 10B, Middleton Row, 7th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071 Haldia Development Authority………………………………………………...............Respondent Haldia Unnayan Bhawan, City Centre, P.O. Debhog, Purba Medinipur, Pin: 721 657 [PAN : CALHO 2596 G] Appearances by: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT & Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. CIT, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Date

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HALDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITTY, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the are dismissed

TDS), Kolkata..............................…………………………………........Appellant 10B, Middleton Row, 7th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071 Haldia Development Authority………………………………………………...............Respondent Haldia Unnayan Bhawan, City Centre, P.O. Debhog, Purba Medinipur, Pin: 721 657 [PAN : CALHO 2596 G] Appearances by: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT & Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. CIT, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Date

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HALDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITTY, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the are dismissed

TDS), Kolkata..............................…………………………………........Appellant 10B, Middleton Row, 7th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071 Haldia Development Authority………………………………………………...............Respondent Haldia Unnayan Bhawan, City Centre, P.O. Debhog, Purba Medinipur, Pin: 721 657 [PAN : CALHO 2596 G] Appearances by: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT & Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. CIT, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Date

M/S SPECIALITY RESTAURANTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T.,RANGE-59(TDS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 271C and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and allow this appeal of the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 29, 2020. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Vice-President) Kolkata, the 29th day of May, 2020 Copies to : (1) M/s. Speciality Restaurants Limited, ‘Uniworth House’, 3A, Gurusaday

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

TDS on amount paid to deductee and, in turn, deductee also hasn't offered to tax income embedded in such amount. The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided under section 271C

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-TDS, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS default u/s. 271C of the Act to the tune of Rs.22,92,201/-. Since the penalty amount levied on the SLAO is a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as stated in section

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. JCIT, R-59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS default u/s. 271C of the Act to the tune of Rs.22,92,201/-. Since the penalty amount levied on the SLAO is a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as stated in section

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SDV INTERNATION LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

TDS is not applicable u/s 194J of the I.T. Act 1961 without considering the fact that explanation below Section 9(1)(vi) was introduced with retrospective effect from 01.07.1976. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) – 24, Kolkata has erred in holding that in case of deduction of tax at source on salary

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SDV INTERNATION LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

TDS is not applicable u/s 194J of the I.T. Act 1961 without considering the fact that explanation below Section 9(1)(vi) was introduced with retrospective effect from 01.07.1976. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) – 24, Kolkata has erred in holding that in case of deduction of tax at source on salary

SDV INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

TDS is not applicable u/s 194J of the I.T. Act 1961 without considering the fact that explanation below Section 9(1)(vi) was introduced with retrospective effect from 01.07.1976. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) – 24, Kolkata has erred in holding that in case of deduction of tax at source on salary

LEXICON COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

TDS an amount paid to deductee and, in turn, deductee also hasn’t offered to tax income embedded in such amount The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided under section 271C

ANIRUDH BHUWALKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A Nos.513&514/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anirudh Bhuwalka.......................................................................……Appellant A.C. Bbhuteria & Co., 2 India Exchange Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-1 [Pan: Aegpb7445E] Vs. Dcit, Cpc…………….….….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 09, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 22.09.2021 & 06.10.2021 Respectively Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.514/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2019-20 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita 514/Kol/2021 – The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

TDS even then the assessee being the principal officer of the company is liable to be treated as assessee in default under the provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1a) read with section 204 of the Income Tax Act and even as per the provisions of section 271C