D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S FIVES STEIN INDIA PROJECTS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

277 (SC) d) CIT vs BM Kharwar reported in 72 ITR 603 (SC) ITA No.91/Kol/2011-C-AM 2 M/s. Fives Stein (I) Projects P.Ltd e) Sir Kikabhai Premchand case reported in 24 ITR 506 (SC) In response to this, the Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO. 3.2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

TDS recoverable written off as under:- (a) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd in ITA No. 277 of 2004 dated 15.11.2013 (b) Delhi Tribunal in the case of Kelly Services India Pvt Ltd vs DIT in iTA No. 5435/Del/2011 dated 16.9.2011 23 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

TDS recoverable written off as under:- (a) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd in ITA No. 277 of 2004 dated 15.11.2013 (b) Delhi Tribunal in the case of Kelly Services India Pvt Ltd vs DIT in iTA No. 5435/Del/2011 dated 16.9.2011 23 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS had been for Rs. 1,65,08,496 and advance Taxes of Rs. 20,50,000 had been paid, a sum of Rs.1,19,70,306 was shown as Refundable to the appellant, in the Return. All the Infrastructure projects had to be carried out on the basis of the agreements/contracts entered into with the Statutory Bodies. In each

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

277/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 345 (Mum.) The disallowance of the expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r 8D requires proximate relationship with the tax exempt income. The disallowance is simply based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures and should not be sustained. Reliance was placed in this regard on the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

277/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 345 (Mum.) The disallowance of the expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r 8D requires proximate relationship with the tax exempt income. The disallowance is simply based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures and should not be sustained. Reliance was placed in this regard on the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

277,477\n11,080,000\n4. Ld.AR further drew our attention to page No.37 of the paper book which shows the particulars of loan/deposit taken/repaid during the year. It was the submission that this is apart of the tax audit report representing the details of loan and interest paid and the TDS, the same reads as follows :-\nMaithan Ceramic Limited

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

TDS 2. List of the parties to whom the commission was paid with PAN and their business expertise 3. The services rendered by the commission agents along with the details of sales against which the commission was paid. 4. Details of the nexus between the commission and the business of the assessee. ITA No.206-207/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Arsh

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

TDS and AO has failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to demonstrate that these documents/evidences are false. Therefore, addition made by the assessing officer needs to be deleted and accordingly we delete the addition of Rs. 5.42 Crores. For the sake of academic discussion, we also note that aforesaid two projects are infrastructure projects specified u/s 80IA

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

TDS and AO has failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to demonstrate that these documents/evidences are false. Therefore, addition made by the assessing officer needs to be deleted and accordingly we delete the addition of Rs. 5.42 Crores. For the sake of academic discussion, we also note that aforesaid two projects are infrastructure projects specified u/s 80IA

DCIT, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. 3 GUYS, HOWRAH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

277) = 6,827,269.28 viii) The above is the cost allocable to the sites for which installation has been doe but invoice has not been raised and so this can be taken as work in progress for services rendered in the AY 2008-09 in respect of which revenue has been booked in AY 2009-10. ix) a) The figure

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

TDS certificate). In addition to this, AO has summoned some of the parties u/s 131(1) of the Act and recorded their statements. In some cases/persons, the statements have been recorded twice and the AO found it contradictory because the person who gave statement did not have experience of Income Tax Proceedings. The Ld. AR for the assessee also pointed

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

GOGHAT THANA LARGE SIZED PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1872 /Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Goghat Thana Large Sized Primary -Vs- Acit, Circle-1, Hooghly Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd. [Pan: Aaalg 0062 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 4 5 M/s Goghat Thana

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

section 115JB. 1(b) The Ld.CIT(A) further erred in failing to appreciate that even otherwise no addition could have been made u/s 115JB when the accounts have been audited and approved in the AGM. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in disallowing expense of Rs. 23,57,810/- under the normal provision

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

section 115JB. 1(b) The Ld.CIT(A) further erred in failing to appreciate that even otherwise no addition could have been made u/s 115JB when the accounts have been audited and approved in the AGM. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in disallowing expense of Rs. 23,57,810/- under the normal provision

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee