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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has grossly erred in law and not justified by upholding the application of Surcharge @ 5% amounting to Rs.7,19,847/- though no surcharge is applicable to co- operative societies for the A.Y. 2013-14. 11. THAT your petitioner

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has grossly erred in law and not justified by upholding the application of Surcharge @ 5% amounting to Rs.7,19,847/- though no surcharge is applicable to co- operative societies for the A.Y. 2013-14, 11. THAT your petitioner

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

viia)(a) of the ITA No.1199/Kol/2012 &1282/Kol/2012- Allahabad Bank A.Y.2008-09 Act cannot be greater than the amount debited to the profit and loss account as provision. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee has raised ground No.1 & 2 before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing it was agreed by the parties that identical issue

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

TDS made or non-applicability of the same and the decision in A.Y. 2014-15 shall mutatis mutandis apply for A.Y. 2015-16 as well. Hence, these grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Ground No. 9 is also allowed for statistical purposes in view of the finding in para 19 and the decision

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

TDS made or non-applicability of the same and the decision in A.Y. 2014-15 shall mutatis mutandis apply for A.Y. 2015-16 as well. Hence, these grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Ground No. 9 is also allowed for statistical purposes in view of the finding in para 19 and the decision

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

TDS made or non-applicability of the same and the decision in A.Y. 2014-15 shall mutatis mutandis apply for A.Y. 2015-16 as well. Hence, these grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Ground No. 9 is also allowed for statistical purposes in view of the finding in para 19 and the decision

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

36(1)(viia) as referred to in Ground No.1 as above in disregard of the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Syndicate Bank (78 ITD 103) and solely relying on the CBDT’s Instruction No. 17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008. 3. That, on facts as well as on law, the Learned

DCIT, CIR-2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI vs. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, COOCHBIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36(1)(viia) for provision of bad debts, as those were not claimed in the specific way. 5. Reliance is placed on the ratio of the following judgments: a) Visara Trading Investment Pvt. Ltd Vs.ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata ITA No.994(Kol) of 2009 A.Y 205-06 order dated 15.02.2012 “B” Bench, Kolkata b) CIT-II Vs. Jonsan Park Advertising

DCIT, CIR-2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI vs. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, COOCHBIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36(1)(viia) for provision of bad debts, as those were not claimed in the specific way. 5. Reliance is placed on the ratio of the following judgments: a) Visara Trading Investment Pvt. Ltd Vs.ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata ITA No.994(Kol) of 2009 A.Y 205-06 order dated 15.02.2012 “B” Bench, Kolkata b) CIT-II Vs. Jonsan Park Advertising

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS namely i) artists remuneration ii)Studio Hire Charges iii)Interest paid on unsecured loans and iv)Car hire charges , conveyance and dep. etc and not in respect of the issues raised by the ld. PCIT in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The reassessment proceeding concluded and culminated vide order dated 18.12.2013 passed under section