M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

TDS on payments made to National Neuroscience Centre. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 04-03-2014 enhanced the disallowance to Rs. 1,70,28,307/-, thus an additional sum of Rs.44,44,625/- (Rs.1

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

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

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

37(1). Therefore, the said disallowance is completely unjustified and needs to be deleted. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) was wrong in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in making disallowance of Rs. 16,22,702/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non- deduction of TDS. The same should be restricted to 30% of the disallowance

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

TDS provisions for international roaming charges of Rs.10,64,45,346/- is allowed. 10. Disallowance of Penalty paid to Department of Telecommunications- Rs.5,05,000/- The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the sum paid as penalty to Department of Telecommunications (DOT) by the assessee would fall under the Explanation to section 37

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS is nothing but a derivative of tax and is not an allowable expenditure even under the provisions of section 36 and 37

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

37(1), read with section 3 of the Income­tax Act, 1961 and Regulation 21 of the SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations, 1996­ Business expenditure ­ Allowability of (Commencement of business] – Assessee was an asset management company incorporated on 8­8­2011­ It was required to obtain SEBI approval for undertaking such business­SEBI approved assessee to act as an asset management company on 17­10­2012­ Thereafter

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rjesh Kumar, Am ]

TDS can be claimed as expenditure for determining the taxable income. The Ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that for claiming any expenditure under the head ‘Profits & Gains from Business’, it has to be in pursuance to the provisions of Section 30 to 37

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

37 of the Act is a residuary section which allows business expenditure which stipulates that any expenditure incurred apart from expenditure described in sections 30 to 36 wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business or profession, shall be allowed in computing under the head 'profit and gains of business or profession'. The interest on late payment of 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

37 of the Act is a residuary section which allows business expenditure which stipulates that any expenditure incurred apart from expenditure described in sections 30 to 36 wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business or profession, shall be allowed in computing under the head 'profit and gains of business or profession'. The interest on late payment of TDS

RUNGTA MINES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

37(1) of the Act w.e.f. from 1st August, 2015 cannot be held to be retrospective in operation. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by assessee on account of ‘CSR’ as envisaged u/s. 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 need to be allowed as deduction. Therefore, the ‘CSR’ expenditure which the assessee company was obliged to discharge because it was a statutory

I.T.O WD - 7(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALINI PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

section 44E or assume diverse other forms. But there must be some artifice or device enabling the assessee to avoid payment of tax on which is really and in truth his income. If the assessee parts with his income producing asset, so that the right to receive income arising from the asset which therefore belongs to the assessee is transferred

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

TDS), Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in my view, the expenditure incurred by the appellant company for the payment made to M/s. Shalini Properties & Developers Pvt.Ltd is a revenue expenditure. 5.1.15. Now, the issue remaining for consideration is whether the expenditure is allowable as business expenditure under section 37

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]

Section 194I of the Act : ITA No.2616/Kol/2013-M/s. Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 16 “It means that the payments made by company advertising its products will be termed as advertising payments. The payments made by the assessee company is not to advertise its products hence the payments cannot be termed as advertising and TDS is liable to be deducted u/s 194I

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

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

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)

TDS late payment interest under section 37. 2. For that the erred in law and on facts in not giving

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)

TDS late payment interest under section 37. 2. For that the erred in law and on facts in not giving