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-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(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(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

ITO, WARD - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SANTHAL MULTICAST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05

TDS certificate issued by the TATA Motors and submission made by the assessee. In view of above the AO rejected the books of accounts and framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who allowed this ground in favour of the assessee by observing as under : “I have gone through

ECONOMIC MEDICAL STORES ,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE - 1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.118/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Economic Medical Stores Vs. Jcit, Range-I, Hooghly 23/1, Panchanantala Street, P.O & P.S. Rishra, Dist: Hooghly, Pin- 712101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaafe8315Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS deduction is a statutory duty for the payer under the provisions of the Act. We thus uphold both the learned lower authorities’ action in issue invoking the impugned disallowance. I.T.A No.118/Kol/2018 Economic Medical Stores 6. Next comes yet another significant aspect of quantification of the impugned disallowance. The legislature has itself amended section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance

FRANCIS KLEIN & COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

section 143(3) of the Act after making scrutiny and enquiry on all matters and issues raised in the show cause notices issued by him. 8) That the appellant craves leave to take additional grounds, and/or to amend or withdraw any of the foregoing grounds before, or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” Smt. Nilima Joshi, Ld. Authorized

ACIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JITENDRA SETH, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/S. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Ajhs 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 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 Challenges Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed In Case No. 749/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2014-15/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Commission Paid Of ₹51,56,694/- As Well As Partly Restricting Section 54F Deduction Disallowance To ₹42,39,181/- Out Of ₹56,52,242/-; Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

section 54F deduction disallowance to ₹42,39,181/- out of ₹56,52,242/-; respectively, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’ Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned Representatives take us the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion qua the former issue of assessee’s commission expenditure disallowance reading as under

M/S KALPANA BIRI MFG. CO. PVT. LTD.,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR- MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg. Co. Acit, Circle, बनाम / Pvt. Ltd., Vill. & P.O. Murshidabad, 39 R.N. V/S. Auragabad Dist. Tagore Road, P.O. Murshidabad, Berhampur, Pin. 742 101 Pin-742 201 [Pan No. Aabck 7051 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.L. Kochar, Advocate & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-Murshidabad U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 13.02.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Having Deleted The Addition To Income For Rs.30628425/- As Alleged Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Alleged Suppression Of Value Of Stock.”

438,39,320 x stock Rs.5,00625 Total diff. in Rs. Rs.3,06,28,425/- ITA No.1020/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 M/s Kalpana Biri Mfg. Co.Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Cir-Msd. Page 5 i.e. total diff. in Rs. Is 3,06,28,425/- of the stock valued by survey team and stock disclosed by you on date of survey. What