AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

274 of the Act issued prior to the passing of the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty, the AO has not specified as to whether the charge against the Assessee is for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing particulars of income. 8. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the assessee was entitled

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS (-) 1,29,449 Total 25,23,977 ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya v. ACIT, Cir-55, Kol. Page 5 Advance tax paid (-) 25,000 Total 24,98,977 Less paid u/s. 140A (-) 6,600 Total 24,92,377 Add 234B 7,50,419 Add 234C 123 Total Tax payable 30,23,135” In this appeal challenge

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order dated 27 November 2015, which renders the proceedings before the Ld. AO and subsequent final dated 27 November 2015, which renders the proceedings before the Ld. AO and subsequent final dated 27 November 2015, which renders the proceedings before the Ld. AO and subsequent

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWAJIT GUHA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

TDS. In this connection we rely in the judgment of Hon’ble Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Rinku Mallick ITAT no. 96 of 2012, GA No. 1368 of 2012 where it was held as under:- “We have heard the learned Counsel Smt. Sinha [Das de], appearing for the appellant, and we have gone through

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

274. The Assessee also claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 44,04,830. The said return was filed by the Assessee, on the basis that, its entire profits from execution of contract with GRSE, were attributable to its PE in India. As such, the entire profits after setting-off loss of earlier years were offered to tax at the rate

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

274. The Assessee also claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 44,04,830. The said return was filed by the Assessee, on the basis that, its entire profits from execution of contract with GRSE, were attributable to its PE in India. As such, the entire profits after setting-off loss of earlier years were offered to tax at the rate

ITO, WD-3(2), SURI, BIRBHUM, BIRBHUM vs. SRI SWAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, BIRBHUM

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs.2,34,691/- and had also not taken the amount of Rs. 56,58,506/- under the head 'Security Charges receipt. Therefore, the AO added back the said two amounts of Rs.10,50,000/- and Rs. 56,58,506/- to the total income 2 S. K. Chakrabory, AY 2010-11 of the assessee as Undisclosed Income and Unexplained

M/S BAYNEE INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Cit-A. The Cit-A Confirmed Some Of The Additions & Some Of The Additions Were Partly Allowed. Thereafter, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings By Issuing Notice On 31-12-09 U/S. 274 R.W.S 271 Of The Act. Thereby, He Imposed A Penalty Of Rs.14,71,134/- U/Sec 271(1) ( C) Of The Act. 1 M/S. Baynee Industries

TDS disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not merely a disallowance but it is proved bogus also. The AO has chosen to disallow it U/S 40(a)(ia) hence it is also a concealment. (viii) Considering the above facts of the case I find no infirmity with the order of the AO and the same is confirmed and the appeal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

274 read with section 271 of the Act wherein the AO put the assessee on notice for offence u/s. 271 (1) ( c) of the Act ( which is per-se-defective because both the limbs of the section 271(1) ( c) has been given without striking out which specific offence is proposed to be charged against the assessee) as well

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS of 274,795/-\nwas duly deducted under Section 194A of the Act. (Page-90)\nDuring the course of the assessment

ITO, WD-30(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S S. L. D. CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Accordingly, Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

274/-. Notices under Sections 143(2) and 115WE(2) of the Act were issued. In response, the A/R representing the assessee filed details in support of his contention. The AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.90,75,170 vide its order dated 29.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act and made additions on account of income from house

ACIT,CIR-2, LTU - 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Circle – 2, Ltu, Kolkata.....................................................................................Appellant 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. Uco Bank……………………………………………………..................................................Respondent 10, Btm Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Aaacu 3561 B] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 728/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Uco Bank……………………………………………………............................................Cross-Objector 10, Btm Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Aaacu 3561 B] A.C.I.T, Circle – 2, Ltu, Kolkata.................................................................................Respondent 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri D.S. Damle, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10, 20219 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17Th , 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 23, Kolkata Dated 29.01.2019 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2019. 2. In The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue, The Following Grounds Are Raised:

TDS. Hence, it is clearly taxable. Copy of the printout of prospectus is attached. The prospectus of HUDCO and IRFC is too voluminous and hence not attached. The scheme as set out by the Government of India is the same for all the three tax-free Bonds. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)- 23 has erred in law and facts

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards payments made without deducting I.T.A. No.: 1711/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. TDS; (ii) disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 80G of the Act towards donation, and (iii) disallowance of claim of deduction

DEY TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

TDS for Rs. 8,34,119/-. Thereafter penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for each addition. Being aggrieved to the order u/s 143(3), the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Later as per the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-15, Kolkata dated 07.03.2018 the assessee got relief regarding the addition

ASIT KUMAR DUTTA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

274 read with Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on 14.12.2018. None appeared in response to the said notice and thus penalty was imposed at Rs. 1,17,641/- in the penalty order passed u/s 27()(c ) of the Act4. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) has simply dismissed

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act and hence no finding is given on the same in this order. Accordingly the issue of levy of penalty is adjudicated herein on merits of the case. The facts stated hereinabove have been adjudicated by this tribunal very elaborately while deciding the quantum appeals for the search assessment years

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers V/S. Acit, Circle-2(2), Pvt.Ltd., Block-Ep, Plot-Y-14, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-91 Kokata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 9181 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata’S Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2017, Involving Proceedings Section 144C R.W. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Assessee Appellant’S First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenge Correctness Of Transfer Price Adjustment Amounting To ₹345,51,562/- In Course Of Assessment As Pertaining To Its International Transactions With Its Overseas Associate Enterprise (Ae). This Assessee Is A Company Providing Consultancy Including Tax & Regulatory Services. It Filed Its Return On 30.11.2012 Stating Total Income Of ₹51,62,16,310/-. This Followed Its Revised Return Dated 31.03.2014 Reducing Its Taxable Income To ₹49,87,12,700/-. The Assessing Officer Took Up Scrutiny. He Came Across

Section G of the study on search criteria is to be seen. The asses se chooses NACE Codes (NACE (Nomenclature of Economic Activities) is the European statistical classification of economic activities. NACE groups organizations according to their business activities. Statistics produced on the basis of NACE are comparable at European level and, in general, at world level in line with

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 115JB. The AO is directed to verify the facts and allow the claim of the assessee. The ground of appeal no. 3 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No. 4 The appellant submitted as under: Short grant of TDS Credit (Rs. 86,09,86,261/-) A. Brief Facts & Submission 1.0. During the previous year relevant