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 u/s 40

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

TDS the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable and the payment cannot be allowed. Therefore, the addition of Rs.16

TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. Section 40(a)(ia) is a compliance provision, not penal, and must

TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. Section 40(a)(ia) is a compliance provision, not penal, and must

M/S TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION,HOOGHLY vs. CIT-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

TDS on amount paid to deductee and, in turn, deductee also hasn’t offered to tax income embedded in such amount. The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided under section 271C, and, therefore, section 40

SHREE ASHOKE PRASAD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 582/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata -Vs- Ashoke Prasad. [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ashoke Prasad -Vs- Dcit, Circle-49, Kolkata [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. The finding of the AO was that the Permanent Account Numbers furnished cannot be accepted as it was not filed with the appropriate authority as required u/s. 194C(7) of the Act and whether such failure attracts and invokes the jurisdiction under Section 40

ACIT, CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ASHOKE PRASAD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 582/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata -Vs- Ashoke Prasad. [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ashoke Prasad -Vs- Dcit, Circle-49, Kolkata [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. The finding of the AO was that the Permanent Account Numbers furnished cannot be accepted as it was not filed with the appropriate authority as required u/s. 194C(7) of the Act and whether such failure attracts and invokes the jurisdiction under Section 40

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS under section 194I of the act and added such amount for violation of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee

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 defaults if amount is payable. If amount is actually paid and taxis not deducted under sections 193, 194A, 194C, 194 H, 194- I, and 194 J either at the time of payment or at the time of giving credit to the recipient, section 40

M/S DHAMEJA MINING,SIKKIM vs. ITO, WD-2(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

40(a)(ia) cannot be read separately from the provisions relating to TDS as pleaded on behalf of assessee. In our opinion, ld. CIT (Appeals) has rightly observed that taking the spirit of TDS provision into account and Section

M/S GHOSH & CHAKRABORTY TRANSPORT,BURDWAN vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

TDS return govern demand under section 201(1)/201(1A) and not disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Even if e-TDS

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

40(a)(ia) of the Act to an extent of Rs.87,388/-. The AO found violation the provisions of Section 194J as studio rendered technical services to the assessee by providing musical as well as technical instruments for which the assessee made payments by way of consideration. For non- production of any lease or sub-lease agreement or any other

SHRI JOYDEB CHANDRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee-ITA No

TDS by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act added a sum of Rs. 53,51,098/- to the total

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 on amount paid to deductee and, in turn, deductee also hasn't offered to tax income embedded in such amount. The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided under section 271C. and, therefore, section 40

DCIT,CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SALTEE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

TDS on the impugned expenses on the ground that the relevant expenses were capitalized as work in progress. Since the expenses has not been claimed in the profit and loss account, the question of any disallowance under section 40

M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not apply. In the present case, the assessee is holding 10,99,300 shares in M/s. Mega Resources Ltd as per register produced by the assessee before the lower authorities. This fact was examined by the Tribunal in the above case. When the assessee is holding the shares as indicated above, which

SUBIR ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Ao That Post Dated Cheques For Short As Pdcs Were Issued Against Such Loan To The Said Finance Company & Therefore, The Assessee Was Not In A Position To Deduct Tax At Source On Interest Payments. This Explanation Of The Assessee Was Not Acceptable To Ao & As Such Added Said Amount 1 Of Rs.6,74,976/- To The Total Income Of Assessee For Violation Of Section 194A Of The Act By Invoking The Provisions U/Sec 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

40(a)(ia) in his submissions before the AO. The said ground and the related facts are being a question of law your honour may decide on the same. “ 6. The CIT-A found that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to submit satisfactory explanation and the assessee was default in not deducting the TDS as per section

H.SARKER & CO.,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIR-47, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sh.P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2007-08] Vs Acit, H. Sarkar & Co., Balitikuri, P.O. Bakultala, Circle-46, Kolkata Howrah-711113. (Presently With Acit, Pan-Aabfh6378K Circle-47, Kolkata), 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata-700001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By Sh. S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2018

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 3. Ld.AR submits that, the AO on perusal of the trading and P&L A/c found that the assessee debited Labour charges to the extent of Rs.12,19,989/-, Rs. 2,70,062/- on account of payment of commission and an amount of Rs.35,400/- paid