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 CAPITAL TOURS(INDIA) PVT. LTD ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.507/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Capital Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd..............................………...…..…Appellant 1, J Embassy Building, 4, Shakepeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700 071. [Pan: Aabcc2821K] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-17, Kolkata U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Wrong In The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) - 17, Kolkata Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee'S Contribution For

36(1)(va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non- obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment

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)

va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. We have considered the findings of the AO and the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court on this issue and respectfully following the judicial ratio of the Jurisdictional High Court on this issue, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed

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 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act are as under:\n“40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

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

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)

1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, the addition of Rs.19,85,240/- made by the Assessing Officer has been rightly deleted by ld CIT(A).That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. C.I T.(A) in deleting the aforesaid addition. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld

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), Range-6, Bank Ltd. Vs. Siliguri (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAAAR6191E Appearances: Assessee represented by : N.C. Mondal, AR. Department represented by : Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 27-November-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 11-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders

NORBEN TEA & EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

36(1)(va) and are disallowed on account of non-fulfillment of the conditions specified therein, further resort cannot be had to the general provisions of section 37(1) of the Act for allowing the delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 10. Ground no. 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) relates

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 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act are as under:\n“40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

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

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income without considering the fact that due date under the relevant Act includes grace period allowed under the said Act. 11. THAT on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC has grossly erred in law and not justified by confirming

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

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income without considering the fact that due date under the relevant Act includes grace period allowed under the said Act. 11. THAT on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC has grossly erred in law and not justified by confirming

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income without considering the fact that due date under the relevant Act includes grace period allowed under the said Act. 11. THAT on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC has grossly erred in law and not justified by confirming

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

SHALIMAR FABRICATORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

36(1)(va) Explanation-2 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the ‘due date* under this clause.” 18. We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about

SHALIMAR FABRICATORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

36(1)(va) Explanation-2 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the ‘due date* under this clause.” 18. We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about

TEWARI WAREHOUSING CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ASST.DCIT(CPC), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Tewari Warehousing Adit(Cpc), Bengalore Co. Pvt. Ltd. 6, Old Goragacha Road, Vs. Hoboken Depot, P.O. Brace Bridge, Kolkata – 700 088. Pan: Aadct 3802 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Vikash Surana, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.07.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Adjustment So Made By Ao Cpc, Bangalore Was Outside The Scope Of Section 143(1) Of The It Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance U/S 36(1)(Va) Made By Ao, Cpc Bangalore Vide 143(1) Intimation Rs. 22,86,639/- Being Employee’S Contribution To Pf & Esi Delayed Under Relevant Act, Although Same Paid Before Due Date U/S 139(1) Of The It Act. 3. For That The Amendment In Section 36(1)(Va) R.W. 43B Is Applicable From 01.04.2021 Onwards & Not Retrospective. 4. Non Credit Of Tds As Per 26As Rs. 1,46,75,366/-, Credit Allowed In Intimation 143(1) Rs. 1,38,91,444/- Page 4 Of Intimation. Besides Tds Deducted By Below

section 36(1)(va) r.w. 43B is applicable from 01.04.2021 onwards and not retrospective. 4. Non credit of TDS as per 26As

RIPLEY AND COMPANY STEVEDORING & HANDLING (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

36(1 )(va) Explanation-2 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the ‘due date’ under this clause’ 18. We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about