D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AT & S INDIA PVT LTD, KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

301 [PAN NoAECA 2930J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Advocate Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue 01-10-2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant

SHREYANS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS and the same does not cover the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, the proviso to section 201 relied upon by the assessee was also not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee for F.Y. 2012 and the contention was, therefore, not accepted. As regards Form No. 26A filed

SHREYANS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS and the same does not cover the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, the proviso to section 201 relied upon by the assessee was also not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee for F.Y. 2012 and the contention was, therefore, not accepted. As regards Form No. 26A filed

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

301 of the Act and as such clauses (iiitle) to (iii)(g) are not applicable to it,' 2 3 M/s.Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 and (ii) "The Company has not given guarantee for loans taken by others from bank or financial institutions. " From the details submitted it is noted that the appellant company had given guarantee commission

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

301/- showing the net amount receivable for ₹7,09,03,670/-. v) In the immediate preceding Assessment Year 2007-08 the assessee has shown gross revenue of ₹5,00,50,670/- only including the revenue from NSNP for ₹4,12,31,324/- only though the TDS was deducted for ITA No.1670/Kol/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, Cir-48 Kol. Vs. M/s 3 Guys

I.T.O WD - 7(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALINI PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

301 of the Act and as such clauses (iii)(e) to (iii) (g) are not applicable to it; and (ii) “The Company has not given guarantee for loans taken by others from bank or financial institutions. “ From the details submitted it is noted that the appellant company had given guarantee commission to M/s. Shalini Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thus

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

TDS written off' of Rs. 73,143/­, 'Travelling & Conveyance' of Rs.13,33,954/­ and 'Personal expenses' of Rs.56,000/­. 6. Having carefully considered the matter, I find that the Ld. A.O was unjustified in taking a view that the business of the assessee had not commenced, when he himself has recorded about the agreement entered by the appellant with

M/S ABHOY CHARAN BAKSHI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] S.A.No.08/Kol/2016 (A/O Ita No.1492/Kol/2015) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Abhoy Charan Bakshi -Vs.- D. C.I.T., Circle-27, Kolkata Haldia [Pan : Aaefm9711E) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Abhoy Charan Bakshi -Vs.- A. C.I.T., Circle-27, Kolkata Haldia [Pan : Aaefm9711E) (Respondent) (Appellant)

301 15 Asha Communication 8,600 86 16 Siba Prasad Satapathy 17,57,486 17,575 17 Prasanta Kumar Pati 16,77,468 16,775 18 Debabrata Dutta 11,800 118 Sub-total 1,99,30,315 1,99,308 2 3 SA.No.8/Kol/2016&ITA No.1492/Kol/2015 M/s. Abhoy Charan Bakshi. A.Yr.2012-13 19 Miscellaneous 53,745 - Total

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS of Rs. 1,50,000/- was deducted and deposited in the account of Athak Investment Pvt. Ltd. thereby deleing the addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- which was stated by the AO to be on account of interest Educo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. paid in cash without bring any material on record to corroborate the same. Therefore

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS of Rs. 1,50,000/- was deducted and deposited in the account of Athak Investment Pvt. Ltd. thereby deleing the addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- which was stated by the AO to be on account of interest Educo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. paid in cash without bring any material on record to corroborate the same. Therefore

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS of Rs. 1,50,000/- was deducted and deposited in the account of Athak Investment Pvt. Ltd. thereby deleing the addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- which was stated by the AO to be on account of interest Educo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. paid in cash without bring any material on record to corroborate the same. Therefore

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS of Rs. 1,50,000/- was deducted and deposited in the account of Athak Investment Pvt. Ltd. thereby deleing the addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- which was stated by the AO to be on account of interest Educo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. paid in cash without bring any material on record to corroborate the same. Therefore

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

TDS thereof. Its I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 United Bank of India only case before us is that section 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso inserted in the Act vide Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 makes it clear that the impugned disallowance does not apply in case an assessee is not in default u/s 201(1) first proviso of the Act if the payees

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

TDS was availed and based\nupon the confirmation from the bank, which was pending at the time of\nassessment and which must have been received by now, and after\ngranting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after\nconsidering its submission, re-adjudicate this issue on the basis of facts\nand as per law. The assessee claims that

HEMRAJ AGARWAL,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, MEDINIPUR

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1825/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hemraj Agarwal…............................…………...……………....……..…………..………………....……Appellant 187, Chandni Chowk Golebazar, Kharagpur Paschim Medinipur West Bengal – 721 301 [Pan: Afqpa 4712 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Midnapur…..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 28/06/2019, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In The Business Of Wholesale Of Pulses, M. Seeds Etc. The Assessing Officer While Passing An Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 16/12/2011, Disallowed An Amount U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act, On The Ground That The Assessee Violated The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Act, With Respect To Payment To Transporters. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, Accepted The Contention Of The Assessee That There Is No Contractual Relationship Between The Assessee & Truck Drivers/Transporters & Hence The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Act, Will Not Apply. While Holding So, The Ld. Cit(A) Came To The Conclusion That Section 194H Of The Act, Applies As The Trucks Were Obtained On Payment Of Commission. As No Tds U/S 194H Of The Act, Was Made On These Commission Payments, He Confirmed The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. 3. Aggrieved The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Me.

301 [PAN: AFQPA 4712 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Midnapur…..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing : February 24th, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order : February 26th

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

TDS on the following payments :- Advertisement in magazine / website listing Inspection Fees Marketing & Development Charges Recruitment Charges Management Fees Professional / Consultancy Charges In response to the show cause notice issued by the ld AO, the assessee replied vide its submission dated 17.3.2015 that the remittances made for the aforementioned heads of expense, in terms of foreign currency, were

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

TDS on the following payments :- Advertisement in magazine / website listing Inspection Fees Marketing & Development Charges Recruitment Charges Management Fees Professional / Consultancy Charges In response to the show cause notice issued by the ld AO, the assessee replied vide its submission dated 17.3.2015 that the remittances made for the aforementioned heads of expense, in terms of foreign currency, were

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS of Rs.26.75 crores, refund of the excess tax along with interest aggregating to Rs.3.07 crores was granted to the assessee as per intimation issued under section 143(1) on 31.01.2008. Subsequently, in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.12.2008, the Assessing Officer added back provision for deferred tax liability, provision for doubtful advance