ACIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. APEX ENTERPRISES (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

TDS certificate in that regard. Hence the said sum of Rs. 11,44,726/- has to be treated as interest amount received in terms of section 198 of the IT Act and as per section 34

MR KRISHAN KUMAR SOMANI,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year: 2007-08

TDS as per express provisions of section 194C as applicable for Assessment Year 2007-2008. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal s)-14, Kolkata was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making disallowance under section 40(a)(i) read with section 194C amounting

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]

TDS and not Section 194I of the Act which applies to payment of rent. The Assessee contended that it never had any right to use the hoarding structures but only had a limited right of displaying advertisement on hoarding structures belonging to others. It was also pointed out that the hoarding structures were not operated and maintained by the assessee

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

section 40(a)(ia) was invoked by the AO to disallow these expenditures made in the garb of the term 'reimbursement' to avail the dual 15 Dey’s Medical (UP) Pvt. ltd. AY 2005-06 advantage of reducing profit and TDS burden on the payees. It was prayed that the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this count

ITO, WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHOK TRADING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shrin.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

34 to 36 of the paper book. For the rest of the parties, the major payment was the reimbursement of the expenses and the services charges of the parties were below the limit as specified under the provisions of TDS. The bill for the service charge and reimbursement of expenses are placed on pages 32 and 33 of the paper

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

34. Coming to Section 9(1)(vii)(b), this deeming fiction- which is foundational basis for the action of the Assessing Officer, inter alia, provides that the income by way of technical services payable by a person resident in India, except in certain situations- which are not attracted in the present case anyway, are deemed to be income accruing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

34. Coming to Section 9(1)(vii)(b), this deeming fiction- which is foundational basis for the action of the Assessing Officer, inter alia, provides that the income by way of technical services payable by a person resident in India, except in certain situations- which are not attracted in the present case anyway, are deemed to be income accruing

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]

TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during the course

TEESTA VALLEY EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri, S.S. Godaraassessment Year :2013-14 Teesta Valley Exports Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(2) Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th 3, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001. Floor, P-7, [Pan No Aaact 9980 D] Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 18-07-2018

TDS, section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowance / addition of ₹1,38,705/- and travelling expenses of ₹34,48,553/-, respectively

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.

TDS and TCS of Rs.1,32,12,469/-without assigning any reasons thereof. 9. 208 Advance Tax That, on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in giving short credit of advance tax of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- without assigning any reasons thereof. 10. 140A Self That, on the facts of the case

I.T.O WD - 3(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S AMIYA CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

Section 194C or not. We find that the material expenses embodied in the labour expenses was duly cross examined u/s 133(6) of the Act and the Inspector of income tax has also provided the positive report with regard to material and labour expenses. In our considered view, the expenses as claimed by the assessee have been duly verified from

ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, KOLKATA vs. SRI DEEPAK GUPTA, RANIGANJ

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

34. From our above discussion it follows that,- i) in the context of Section 194C(1), person undertaking to do the work is the Contractor and the person so engaging the contractor is the contractee; ii) that by virtue of the Amendment introduced by Finance Act (No.2) 2009, the distinction between a contractor and a sub-contractor has been done

TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

TDS under section 194J of the Act. Ground 8.5: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/CIT have erred in routinely applying section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without satisfaction of all the requirements stipulated under second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Appellant has not been held

TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

TDS under section 194J of the Act. Ground 8.5: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/CIT have erred in routinely applying section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without satisfaction of all the requirements stipulated under second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Appellant has not been held

TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

TDS under section 194J of the Act. Ground 8.5: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/CIT have erred in routinely applying section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without satisfaction of all the requirements stipulated under second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Appellant has not been held

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS provisions are not applicable on the same. I.T.A. No.2567/Kol/2019 C.O. 12/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s TM International Logistics Ltd., Kolkata 12. It was brought to our notice that the assessee (in short ‘TMILL) had entered into an agreement with Tata Steel Limited (‘TSL’) for handling tonnages for respective divisions of the TSL at different ports. In accordance with

SRI MANINDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR,BURDWAN vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2201/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Manindra Mohan Vs. J.C.I.T, Range-1, Asansol Mazumdar Sahana Apartment Mother Teressa 19, Radhangar Road, Burnpur- 713325, Road, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – Dist- Burdwan. 713304. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aelpm 0074 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS credit to the tune of Rs.60,004/- on mobilization advance and not entire contract receipts were received in the relevant Assessment Year. 3. Now, we shall take first grievance of the assessee, which relatesto disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A read with rule 8D to the tune of Rs.3

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS certificate is essential. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 6. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a) (i) of the Act:— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts