RADHEYSHYAM GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं"या/ I.T.A. No. 187/कोल/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radheyshyam Gupta...…………............... (अपीलाथ"/Appellant [Pan: Adjpg 3274 G] Vs. Pcit-9, Kolkata........................................(""यथ")/Respondent Appearances By: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Smt. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit, (D/R), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of The Hearing : July 19Th, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : Sept 09Th, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-9, Kolkata [In Short

3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account Assessment Year 2017-18 Page 17 I.T.A. No.: 187/Kol/2022 Assessment Year

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)

Sections 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3)of the Act, that the said provisions are intended to enforce due compliance of the requirement of other provisions of the Act and to ensure proper collection of tax as also transparency in dealings of the parties. The necessity of disallowance comes into operation only when default of the nature specified

M/S MITRA GUHA BUILDERS (INDIA) CO.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-33(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA NO.1594/Kol/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and C

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 40A(3) of the Act. On the other ground as it appears that the CIT (Appeal) has been directed ,to reconsider the matter. In view of that we do not think that any substantial question of law is involved in this matter. Hence the appeal being ITA NO. 202 of 2008 is dismissed. 15. The ld. DR relied

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

TDS should have been deducted at the rate of 10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction of tax at source but in a case, where

EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

40A(9) The record of the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act was examined by the ld. Principal CIT, Kolkata-4, Kolkata. On such examination, he was of the view that there were following errors in the said assessment, which were prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue

SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI,MURSHIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. u/s.143(3) directing to examine again the payments made on account of employer's contribution in E.P.F. (7) That on the facts and in the circumstances

ABHISHEK SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR. 23(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2017-18 Abhishek Saha Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. 24, Lenin Sarani, Mallickpara Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Hooghly - 712203 Kolkata [Pan: Bvhps3605N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23/12/2021 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly, Dated 07/11/2019. Assessee Has Placed On Record Revised Grounds Of Appeal For Which 2. Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Gave Assurance To The Bench That There Are No New Grounds Taken While Revising The Grounds. These Are Merely To Summarize & Concise The Grounds Originally Taken By The Assessee.

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 5.5. Accordingly, considering the above facts and judicial precedents and the material placed on record discussed above, we allow the ground of appeal and direct for deletion of addition of Rs.1,22,97,460/-, made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 6. On the third issue relating to addition of Rs.22

ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. M/S BLUE STAR CIVIL ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LTD., PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1439/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-27, Haldia -Vs- Blue Star Civil Engineering Company [Pan: Aaccb 2247 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 12.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the disallowance of payments made to sub-contractors both on genuineness and u/s 40A(3

A.C.I.T CIR - 2,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SRI RAJAN BABU, DURGAPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

3 4) RIL in the year under consideration has shown net profit of Rs. 53,19,121.00 only in spite of the fact that it has received an income exceeding Rs. 44.12 crores. In the light of the above observation of AO, the assessee also responded that the payment was made to RIL for the implementation of Ferro Alloys Plant

USUF TRADING CO.,,MURSHIDABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 1,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 1, Usuf Trading Co., Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Near Railway Station, Dhuliyan Ward - 42(1), Murshidabad, 39, Jangipur, Murshidabad, Vs. R.N. Tagore Road, Behrampur, West Bengal, 742202 Murshidabad, West Bengal, 742101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfu4764B Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Raha, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025

TDS was deducted at source. Thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act vide order dated 06.03.2025 accepting the returned income by holding that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act were not applicable to the assessee as the transporters were having PAN number and none of the transporters was owning more

RAJENDRA KUMAR RATHI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-33(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

TDS and as such disallowed an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. Before

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 40A(3) disallowance (supra) no more carry merit as the above rejection of books followed by gross profit estimation takes care of all other aspects as per CIT vs. Banawri Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All). The Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1810/Kol/2016 fails. 13. The assessee’s next endeavour in his appeal is to reduce his revenue receipts

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 40A(3) disallowance (supra) no more carry merit as the above rejection of books followed by gross profit estimation takes care of all other aspects as per CIT vs. Banawri Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All). The Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1810/Kol/2016 fails. 13. The assessee’s next endeavour in his appeal is to reduce his revenue receipts

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

3. The learned counsel for the assessee has further contended that AO has made a reference under section 92CA, having observed that the assessee has entered into specified domestic transaction as this case is covered under section 928A of the IT Act but later on there was amendment in section 92BA by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby clause

M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

3. The learned counsel for the assessee has further contended that AO has made a reference under section 92CA, having observed that the assessee has entered into specified domestic transaction as this case is covered under section 928A of the IT Act but later on there was amendment in section 92BA by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby clause

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

TDS return under section 194IA 8. Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR 9. Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR 4. After conducting enquiries with reference to the foregoing issues and after verification of details furnished by the assessee the AO completed the assessment

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

TDS. He had invoked section 40a(ia) of the Act to disallow the assessee’s claim of Rs. 67,48,288/- in assessment order. The CIT(A) accepts assessee’s arguments as follows: 23 A.Yr. 2009-10 Suffice to say, we notice that at the outset that this issue is covered in assessee’s favour from preceding assessment years

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

TDS. He had invoked section 40a(ia) of the Act to disallow the assessee’s claim of Rs. 67,48,288/- in assessment order. The CIT(A) accepts assessee’s arguments as follows: 23 A.Yr. 2009-10 Suffice to say, we notice that at the outset that this issue is covered in assessee’s favour from preceding assessment years