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

section 201(2) of the Income Tax Act specifically provides that the TDS either not deducted or not deposited in time along with interest thereon, shall be a charge on the property of such person responsible. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Harshad Shantilal Mehta” (supra) is, in no way, applicable

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF TATA COFFEE LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

438 of the Act without any basis, in the computation sheet forming an integral part of the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act 5.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in denying claim of Rs. 14,662/- towards Provident fund, made on payment

M/S NEW MODERN CONSTRUCTION,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WD-3, SURI, BIRBHUM

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

TDS for the A.Y 2009-10 relevant to FY 2008-09. The AO found contradictory statements from the said two partners of the assessee firm and as such the submissions made by the assessee were rejected. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.6,49,210/- was added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Regarding the amount of Rs.9,554/- which

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

438/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 5,78,57,816/- under section 115JB of the Act. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 24.12.2009, the total income as declared by the assessee company in its return of income was accepted by the A.O. Subsequently, the assessment

ISDEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MILKHIRAM MARKET, SAKCHI, JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

438/- declared under the provision of MAT and corresponding tax liability of Rs. 31,67,046/- I.T.A. No.: 730/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 ISDEC India Private Limited. . As the tax liability as per the normal provision of the Act was higher, hence the assessee paid taxes under the normal provision of the Act. The said tax liability of Rs.77

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

TDS only and is not applicable to the case of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings the A/R furnished the detailed analysis of the scope of work with reference to various projects, stating inter alia facts regarding labour and material supplied, risk undertaken, investment made, etc. Before me the A/R of the appellant has argued that

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

TDS only and is not applicable to the case of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings the A/R furnished the detailed analysis of the scope of work with reference to various projects, stating inter alia facts regarding labour and material supplied, risk undertaken, investment made, etc. Before me the A/R of the appellant has argued that

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

TDS has been claimed by Mrs.Dewangan (vii) No statement of the Loan creditor was recorded under section 131 of the Act. (viii) Sanjay Dewangan identified VatsalaDewangan as his mother in his statement recorded under section 131 of the Act, a fact which is on record. 9. Hemant Kumar Dewangan (i) Loan of Rs.3,00,000 received on 08.03.2010 by cheque

M/S. LA OPALA RG LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1) [FORMERLY JCIT, RANGE-12, KOLKATA ], KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) M/S La Opala Rg Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 8Th Floor, Premises No.803 & 804 Eco Centre, Em-4, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700091, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5569J Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan & Deepak Mundhra, Tanmoy Kar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

Section 9(1) of the Act, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195 of the Act. 6.16 The contention of appellant are considered and found to be acceptable. Th income of foreign agents is taxable in India only when the have permanent establishment ("PE"). The Ld. AO has not proved in the assessment order that

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHANKAR SEN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in all the three cases

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 656/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(It),Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Subhankar Sen [Pan: Ambps 0306 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 5(2) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee was an employee in IBM India Private Limited and during the financial year 2012-13 was sent on short term assignment to Nigeria. He had stationed in Nigeria for 311 days during the year under

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

438/- as duplicate one. I.T.A. Nos.: 1886, 1887 & 1923/KOL/2024 AYs: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2014-15 Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 6. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to add/delete/modify ground(s) and/or modify arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” III. I.T.A. No.: 1923/KOL/2024; A.Y. 2014-15: “1. THAT on the facts of the case

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

438/- as duplicate one. I.T.A. Nos.: 1886, 1887 & 1923/KOL/2024 AYs: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2014-15 Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 6. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to add/delete/modify ground(s) and/or modify arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” III. I.T.A. No.: 1923/KOL/2024; A.Y. 2014-15: “1. THAT on the facts of the case

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

438/- as duplicate one. I.T.A. Nos.: 1886, 1887 & 1923/KOL/2024 AYs: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2014-15 Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 6. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to add/delete/modify ground(s) and/or modify arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal.” III. I.T.A. No.: 1923/KOL/2024; A.Y. 2014-15: “1. THAT on the facts of the case

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance