ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. S. N. CONSTRUCTION, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. 5. Regarding the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the assessee submits that it was, under exceptional circumstances, that payments had to be made by way of cash. The assessee pleaded that it had taken up civil works on contract from U.K.Ispat and that the location of the site was at a village by name “Shri Chandanpur”, where

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]

7. Large value sale of consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property reported in 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

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)

7. Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below in the light of rival submissions and relevant provisions and various judicial pronouncements, we find that by virtue of the insertion of section 92BA on the statute as per clause (i), any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to person referred

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)

7. Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below in the light of rival submissions and relevant provisions and various judicial pronouncements, we find that by virtue of the insertion of section 92BA on the statute as per clause (i), any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to person referred

M/S EXCEL ENGINEERS,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 51,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Sub-contractor payment of Rs. 21,45,387/- No evidence in support of identity of staff, mode of remittance and documents in support of disbursement was submitted. Entire payments were made to one Prasanna Vaishya. 2.2.1. The assessee filed his rejoinder to the remand report before the ld CITA separately for two expenditures . Labour

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

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In the instant case the AO has not brought anything on record by which the said provisions can be attracted to the instant transactions of commission payment. Besides the above, we also find the payment has been made by the assessee to RIL which has been disclosed by the assessee and the party

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)

b) of the Act. The matter has, however, been finally decided by the Supreme Court in the case of PCIT. Jaipur vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd [2017) 84 taxman.com 185(SC) where the Apex Court had confirmed the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which held that amounts claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

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

b). Provision for gratuity u/s 40A(7), for A.Y.2003­04 Rs.20,71,870/­ (c ).Contribution to Superannuation Fund U/s 40A (9), for A.Y. 2002­03 Rs.14,75,778/­ (d).Contribution to Superannuation Fund U/s 40A (9), for A.Y. 2003­04 Rs. 5,47,224/­ M/s.Epcos Ferrites Ltd (Since merged with M/s. Epcos India P.Ltd) 26. We have heard both the parties

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANTORA OIL PRODUCTS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section has no application in respect of income received from related party but applies only for disallowance of excessive expenditure. 7. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT directing AO to examine melting loss of gold be held to be unsustainable as no infirmity was proved in assessment order

ANJALI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section has no application in respect of income received from related party but applies only for disallowance of excessive expenditure. 7. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT directing AO to examine melting loss of gold be held to be unsustainable as no infirmity was proved in assessment order

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

7 I.T.A. No.: 187/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radheyshyam Gupta. relied on the impugned order and also submitted that the assessee has submitted the details of purchase at page 36 of the P.B stating that cash of Rs.,3,03,796/- and cash of Rs. 2,24,63,103/- has been paid in cash for purchase of old diamond jewellery

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

40a(i). There is no dispute about the nature of payment being commission paid to foreign agents except for small amount of Rs.36,30,643j -, which is claimed by the appellant to have been paid to Indian agents after deduction of tax at source. The AO has proceeded by assuming that all the amounts are commission paid to foreign agents

M/S. THIESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

7. For the Ld. CIT erred in attraction of section 40A(2)(b) for huge remuneration amounting to Rs.124.12 lacs paid to key management personnel when an amount was paid to senior mining professionals and other full time employees of the Company having sound business knowledge and profound experience in the field and having no shareholding in the company

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

40A(2)(b) of the Act. First of all, there should be a finding recorded by the AO that the expenses are unreasonable and how? But from the order of the AO, it is not coming out that what is the basis for disallowance. Just simply 6 Sanjay Transport Agency AY 2008-09 ad hoc disallowance cannot be made. Accordingly

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

40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the submission of the AR on this point along with the case laws relied upon

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

40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the submission of the AR on this point along with the case laws relied upon

MANISH CHAND AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS was deducted on the payments and hence it is a genuine payment, on the ground that this is a systematic manner of reducing income. He held that it is not a case of double taxation of income. On appeal, the Ld. First Appellate Authority, held that the assessee failed to give the reason for commission payment as no commission

MANISH CHAND AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS was deducted on the payments and hence it is a genuine payment, on the ground that this is a systematic manner of reducing income. He held that it is not a case of double taxation of income. On appeal, the Ld. First Appellate Authority, held that the assessee failed to give the reason for commission payment as no commission