MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

TDS against Royalty during the FY-2008-09. 3.1 Subsequently the revision order was passed on 26.03.2014 by the Ld. CIT-1, Kolkata and the assessment was set aside on the above two limited issues with a direction to re-assess the allowability of the above two expenses after bringing all the facts and records

SOMA RANI GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

TDS, our attention is drawn to the fact that though the Finance Act, (N0.2) 2009 introduced, inter alia, Sec. 194C(6) and 194C(7), similar and analogous provision had been very much in existence under proviso 2 and 3 to Section 194C(3) of the Act. Placing such provisions in juxtaposition in the following chart makes it clear that they

ITO, WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SARGA HOTEL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 31 of the Code (Copy of the Order I.T.A. Nos.: 664 & 665/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Sarga Hotel Private Limited dated 4ª January 2024 read with Resolution Plan is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure A and Annexure B respectively. Under the terms of the aforementioned Resolution Plan, the admitted claims of the statutory dues

I.T.O, WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SARGA HOTEL PVT. LTD. , SALT LAKE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed\nas infructuous

Section 31 of the Code (Copy of the Order\ndated 4th January 2024 read with Resolution Plan is enclosed herewith and\nmarked as Annexure A and Annexure B respectively.\nUnder the terms of the aforementioned Resolution Plan, the admitted claims of\nthe statutory dues of the Corporate Debtor were settled and resolved by\npayment of an amount

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

TDS u/s.194LBB of\nthe Act is not tenable and required to be deleted.\n24.2 We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made\nand the documents filed. The provisions of section 194LBB of the Act\nare as under:\n“194LBB. Where any income, other than that proportion of income which is\nof the same nature as income referred

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

TDS u/s.194LBB of\nthe Act is not tenable and required to be deleted.\n24.2 We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made\nand the documents filed. The provisions of section 194LBB of the Act\nare as under:\n“194LBB. Where any income, other than that proportion of income which is\nof the same nature as income referred

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 u/s.194LBB of the Act is not tenable and required to be deleted. 24.2 We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made and the documents filed. The provisions of section 194LBB of the Act are as under: “194LBB. Where any income, other than that proportion of income which is of the same nature as income referred

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

section 80IA of the Act we hold that the ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding the assessee’s entitlement for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Accordingly this ground of appeal raised by the revenue stands dismissed.” 30. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal we hold that there is no merit in ground no.4 raised by the revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEY'S MEDICAL (U.P.) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06

TDS 2 Dey’s Medical (UP) Pvt. ltd. AY 2005-06 u/s 194C by inappropriately accepting contention of the assessee that such disallowance should be qualified for non deduction u/s 194C. 3. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of sales promotion expenses. Ld.CIT(A) inappropriately

M/S. COSMIC FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

TDS which may arise out of any Ongoing Disputes Known or in abeyance and Unknown to Resolution 6 AY 2013-14 Cosmic Ferro Alloys Ltd. Applicants upto the end of the Resolution Process be treated as Finally Settled at “NIL Value”. At Page 47 - “Liability which may accrue to Provisions of MAT and Other Sections of Income Tax Act – Waiver

BHAGWATI GASES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

31. The provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act only applies where the assessee was liable to deduct tax and failed to deduct or deposit the tax. In the case of the assessee, the payment being in the nature of late surcharge, the same was not covered under the TDS provisions of Act and accordingly no disallowance

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

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

31. The provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act only applies where the assessee was liable to deduct tax and failed to deduct or deposit the tax. In the case of the assessee, the payment being in the nature of late surcharge, the same was not covered under the TDS provisions of Act and accordingly no disallowance

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]

31(1), the test is not whether the expenditure is revenue or capital in nature but whether the expenditure is current repairs. It is thus clear that the issue relating to the allowability of the expenditure incurred on replacement or renovation as is involved in the present case has to be decided on the touchstone of section 37 and from

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]

31(1), the test is not whether the expenditure is revenue or capital in nature but whether the expenditure is current repairs. It is thus clear that the issue relating to the allowability of the expenditure incurred on replacement or renovation as is involved in the present case has to be decided on the touchstone of section 37 and from

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

TDS under section 194 on the reimbursement of salary of seconded I.T.A. Nos. 1671/KOL./2008 & 1024/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 & I.T.A. Nos. 1699/KOL/2008 & 973/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 10 of 34 employees. Keeping in view these decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nagase India Pvt. Limited (supra) and Temasek

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

TDS deduction under section 194C does not arise. We find force in the submissions of the Ld.AR in this regard. The impugned addition as made by the AO is admittedly below the prescribed monetary limit as required u/section 194I of the Act, therefore, 4 Debjyoti Mishra we hold that the addition made for violation of Section 194C is not maintainable

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

31. Applying the ratio laid down in the foregoing decision to the facts of the present case, we note that when the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT, clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act had already been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017 and in that view of the matter the Ld. Pr. CIT could

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTERNATIONAL SEAPORTS (HALDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 997/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income International Seaports (Haldia) Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Vs Pvt. Ltd. 41, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road Kanak Building 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aaaci9468D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudipto Ghosh, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Kolkata- 4/10691/2015-16, Vide Order Dt. 14/02/2018, Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13, Dated 27/03/2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Company Stating That The Expenditure Of Rs.5,21,03,578/- Made On Account Of Repairing Work Made By The Concern M/S. Portek Systems & Equipments Pte. Ltd., Singapore Was Revenue Expenditure. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Not Appreciating The Facts That The Aforesaid Repairing Work Was Not Routine Repairing Works Of The Assessee Company & It Required Technical Assistance To Bring The Ship Unloaders In A Good Condition For Future Works. Ay: 2012-13 International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. 2

TDS was done. Details of the said expenses disallowed is tabulated as under:- Entity Amount Nature of Services A Haldia Dock Complex Rs.42,32,776 Premium on lease hold land B Steel Authority of India Rs.20,61,419 Payment of railway siding charges C Steel Authority of India Rs.9,36,337 Demurrage Charges Total Rs.72,30,532 5.1. Assessment

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

31-03-2022 by the Ld. A.O. without meeting the objections raised by the assessee on reopening of the assessment was contrary to the binding principle of law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC), and hence void ab initio. 6 6. 45(1A) Loss of Stock