DCIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 194C or sec. 194D of the Act i.e. the TDS provisions. The Ld. Sr. DR could not reply on this. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) and also Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors

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]

section 37. For this conclusion, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [66 ITR 710], wherein it was held that in a case, where the productive unit set up by the asessee remained the same but a part of it, which has become

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]

section 37. For this conclusion, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [66 ITR 710], wherein it was held that in a case, where the productive unit set up by the asessee remained the same but a part of it, which has become

SHRI DILIP KUMAR NATHANY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

TDS provision were not complied. 2. Name and address of the transporters were not provided. 3. Appellant took various adjournment but no details regarding transportation were submitted. 4. The appellant submitted purchase bill issued by supplier which was showing few truck numbers and that too for the part of the financial year only. In that bill cost and excise duty

LOVELY DAS,DUM DUM vs. ADDL/JCIT, NASHIK

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 250 even though the assessee has offered the corresponding income for taxation. I.T.A. Nos.: 291, 292, 293 & 294/KOL/2025 AYs: 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Lovely Das. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT(A)-NASHIK has erred in denying the assessee the credit for TDS

LOVELY DAS,DUM DUM vs. ADDL/JCIT, NASHIK

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 250 even though the assessee has offered the corresponding income for taxation. I.T.A. Nos.: 291, 292, 293 & 294/KOL/2025 AYs: 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Lovely Das. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT(A)-NASHIK has erred in denying the assessee the credit for TDS

LOVELY DAS,DUM DUM vs. ADDL/JCIT, NASHIK

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 250 even though the assessee has offered the corresponding income for taxation. I.T.A. Nos.: 291, 292, 293 & 294/KOL/2025 AYs: 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Lovely Das. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT(A)-NASHIK has erred in denying the assessee the credit for TDS

LOVELY DAS,DUMDUM vs. ADDL/JCIT, NASHIK

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 250 even though the assessee has offered the corresponding income for taxation. I.T.A. Nos.: 291, 292, 293 & 294/KOL/2025 AYs: 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Lovely Das. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT(A)-NASHIK has erred in denying the assessee the credit for TDS

DCIT(EXAM),CIR-1(1), KOLKATA vs. G.D. CHARITABLE SOCIETY , MURSHIDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 250 even though the assessee has offered the corresponding income for taxation. I.T.A. Nos.: 291, 292, 293 & 294/KOL/2025 AYs: 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Lovely Das. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT(A)-NASHIK has erred in denying the assessee the credit for TDS

SUKHDHAM INFRASTRUCTURES LLP,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-40(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS, income tax and service tax. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground on or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3 I.T.A. No. 2611/Kol/2019 I.T.A No. 148/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP 3. Issue raised in ground no. 1 is a legal issue challenging the order

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-40, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUKHDHAM INFRASTRUCTURES LLP, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS, income tax and service tax. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground on or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3 I.T.A. No. 2611/Kol/2019 I.T.A No. 148/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP 3. Issue raised in ground no. 1 is a legal issue challenging the order

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, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS obligations with regard to commission payments made to Airports 29 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 Authority of India. We direct the Learned AO accordingly. Hence the Ground No. 10 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Disallowance on account of advance written off – Rs. 2,01,50,000/- The assessee, provided

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS obligations with regard to commission payments made to Airports 29 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 Authority of India. We direct the Learned AO accordingly. Hence the Ground No. 10 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Disallowance on account of advance written off – Rs. 2,01,50,000/- The assessee, provided

VISHAL PACHISIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-44(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

292/-. However, the AO, CPC allowed the credit to the tune of Rs. 13,592/- in respect of TDS deducted at source thereby denying the credit of Rs. 3,96,700/- to the assessee on the ground that the same was not deposited by the employer M/s. Falcon Tyres Ltd. in the Government treasury. 5. Ld. CIT(A) also upheld

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS assessee giving sub contract of labour to Supreme was deducted in respect of those Construction and making payment to it for the payments. same. The said activities does not concern the payments made by the assessee for giving sub contract of labour to Supreme Construction in any way. Further, without prejudice to the above, the assessee would like

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS assessee giving sub contract of labour to Supreme was deducted in respect of those Construction and making payment to it for the payments. same. The said activities does not concern the payments made by the assessee for giving sub contract of labour to Supreme Construction in any way. Further, without prejudice to the above, the assessee would like

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS assessee giving sub contract of labour to Supreme was deducted in respect of those Construction and making payment to it for the payments. same. The said activities does not concern the payments made by the assessee for giving sub contract of labour to Supreme Construction in any way. Further, without prejudice to the above, the assessee would like