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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 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

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income ITA No.1354/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 DCIT

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

III* to section\n194C;\n[(v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation\nto section 194-1;\n(vi) "royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi)\nof sub-section (1) of section 9;]\"\n11.1 It is submitted that if tax is directly paid by the recipient, the\nassessee

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

TDS, is not covered either under the provision of sections 30 to 36 of the Act, nor it qualifies as expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business or profession u/s 37 of the Act. Even u/s 36(1)(iii

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

TDS, is not covered either under the provision of sections 30 to 36 of the Act, nor it qualifies as expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business or profession u/s 37 of the Act. Even u/s 36(1)(iii

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-3 Vs M/s Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd [ ITA No. 63/Mum/09]. I however find the submissions of the ld. AR to be untenable in the context of the amendments brought in Section 9(1)(vii) by the Legislature in the Finance Act, 2010. 5. The Explanation to Section 9(2) was inserted by the Legislature which clarified that irrespective whether services

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36(1)(iii) – Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) – On instant appeal, it was seen that Commissioner (Appeal) as also Tribunal had record a clear finding that assessee had interest-free funds of its own which had been generated in course of year commencing from 1-4-1999 – Further, in terms of balance-sheet there was an availability of Rs.398.19

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36(1)(iii) – Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) – On instant appeal, it was seen that Commissioner (Appeal) as also Tribunal had record a clear finding that assessee had interest-free funds of its own which had been generated in course of year commencing from 1-4-1999 – Further, in terms of balance-sheet there was an availability of Rs.398.19

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36(1)(iii) – Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) – On instant appeal, it was seen that Commissioner (Appeal) as also Tribunal had record a clear finding that assessee had interest-free funds of its own which had been generated in course of year commencing from 1-4-1999 – Further, in terms of balance-sheet there was an availability of Rs.398.19

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36(1)(iii) – Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) – On instant appeal, it was seen that Commissioner (Appeal) as also Tribunal had record a clear finding that assessee had interest-free funds of its own which had been generated in course of year commencing from 1-4-1999 – Further, in terms of balance-sheet there was an availability of Rs.398.19

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

III* to section 194C; [(v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;]” 11.1 It is submitted that if tax is directly paid by the recipient, the assessee shall

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

III* to section\n194C;\n[(v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation\nto section 194-1;\n(vi) "royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi)\nof sub-section (1) of section 9;]\"\n11.1 It is submitted that if tax is directly paid by the recipient, the\nassessee

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)(viia). Since the deduction is available only for computing the business income under the clause, therefore the total income also refers the income of the assessee from profit and gain from a business and shall not include the income other than the business income." We find that issue in hand is identical to the one already decided

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)(viia). Since the deduction is available only for computing the business income under the clause, therefore the total income also refers the income of the assessee from profit and gain from a business and shall not include the income other than the business income." We find that issue in hand is identical to the one already decided

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36 37.1 The AO also observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA on interest receipt in the year under consideration whereas in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. AY 2004-05, the assessee had considered that interest income as income from other sources and had not claimed deduction u/s. 80IA. The assessee itself has stated that this interest

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36 37.1 The AO also observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA on interest receipt in the year under consideration whereas in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. AY 2004-05, the assessee had considered that interest income as income from other sources and had not claimed deduction u/s. 80IA. The assessee itself has stated that this interest

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36 37.1 The AO also observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA on interest receipt in the year under consideration whereas in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. AY 2004-05, the assessee had considered that interest income as income from other sources and had not claimed deduction u/s. 80IA. The assessee itself has stated that this interest