M/S. BINDHYA BASHINI TRADERS,LIUAH, HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and had filed its return of income on 16.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 60,69,380/-. The return was processed by the CPC making addition

M/S. BINDHYA BASHINI TRADERS ,LILUAH, HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and had filed its return of income on 16.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 60,69,380/-. The return was processed by the CPC making addition

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(va), as the Employees’ PF and ESI contributions were paid after the due date but before the filing the Income Tax Return under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee had made delayed payment of interest on TDS

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG) (P)LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(va), as the Employees’ PF and ESI contributions were paid after the due date but before the filing the Income Tax Return under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee had made delayed payment of interest on TDS

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

36(1)(viia) of the Act by\napplying Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.\n11. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 relate to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act\non account of non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(iv) read with Section 43B(b) of the Act. • Apart from the approved superannuation fund, to compensate for the increased cost of living of the employees, the Bank also provides annual increment on the Base pension which is .towards unfunded pension liability and directly paid to the employees. Such provision in relation to the unfunded pension liability

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(iv) read with Section 43B(b) of the Act. • Apart from the approved superannuation fund, to compensate for the increased cost of living of the employees, the Bank also provides annual increment on the Base pension which is .towards unfunded pension liability and directly paid to the employees. Such provision in relation to the unfunded pension liability

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above we confirm the order of ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.3,59,52,944/-. 27. Ground No. 9 raised by the Revenue relates to deletion of disallowance of Rs.30,68,635/- made by AO on account of sale promotion expenses. 28. Brief

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

36(1)(viia) of the Act by applying Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 11. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 relate to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHRADHA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1362/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

36(2) for write off of bad debt has not been satisfied by the assessee. Under the circumstances, the write off of the aforesaid bad debt and advances amounting to Rs. 12,72,983/- was not allowed by AO. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

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

36(1)(viia) of the Act by\napplying Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.\n11.\nGround Nos. 8 and 9 relate to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act\non account of non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS certificates filed before the AO and the DRP. d) The Hon'ble DRP grossly erred in holding that the payment of unfunded pension made by the Appellant is related to pension paid to pensioners and hence disallowed under section 36

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, filing of PAN of the Payee-Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required; I.T.A. No. 1420/KOL./2015 Assessment year: 2012-2013 Page 19 of 19 v) Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract 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]

TDS recoverable under section 28 read with section 37 of the Act and/or section 36(2) of the Act. 2(b) That

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 under section 28 read with section 37 of the Act and/or section 36(2) of the Act. 2(b) That

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

section 36(1). The question as to whether a debt had become bad or not was a pure question of fact and, therefore, it could not be construed as a question of. Law.” In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents on the impugned issue, we don’t find any reason to interfere with

MACNEILL ENGINEERING LTD,DCIT, CIR. 1(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act is prospective in nature and would apply from AY 2021-22 onwards.Consequently ground no. 2 to 4 are allowed. 6. The issue raised in ground no. 5 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the issue of Rs. 89,269/- to the file of AO for verification

VANTAGE ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

36.(1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28- (i) to (vi) xxxx xxxx xxxx (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable