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

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We do not see any additional evidence admitted in lower appellate proceedings of all much less in violation of said statutory provision. Its first substantive grievance raised in instant two appeals stands decline therefore. 4. Next comes Revenue’s second identical substantive grievance in both assessment years seeking to revive the Assessing Officer

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

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We do not see any additional evidence admitted in lower appellate proceedings of all much less in violation of said statutory provision. Its first substantive grievance raised in instant two appeals stands decline therefore. 4. Next comes Revenue’s second identical substantive grievance in both assessment years seeking to revive the Assessing Officer

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S FIVES STEIN INDIA PROJECTS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

46A of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 & 4 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 5. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.1. The brief

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDO NABIN PROJECTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (Ground No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2036/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Circle-10(1), Vs. M/S. Indo Nabin Projects Ltd. Kolkata 1582, Rajdanga Main Road, 7Th Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, P-7, Floor, Kolkata – 700 107. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci 6515 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit(Dr) Respondent By:Shris. R. Bhattacharya, Ca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata, In Appeal No.1357/Cit(A)-4/Ward- 10(1)/Kol/15-16, Dated 03.08.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 02.01.2016. 2.Ground No.1 Raised By The Revenue Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.32,383/- Which Is, As Per Revenue, Penal In Nature Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ii). 3.1The Brief Facts Apropos This Issue Are That Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2013-14 On 24.09.2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.6,70,51,640/-. The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act & The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) By Making Various Disallowances. During The Assessment

TDS is not levied on the interest on income tax but it is levied on account of tax deducted at source from the payments. Therefore, the said section is not applicable on interest on income tax. Apart from this, the assessing officer has not brought anything on record to establish that the assessee has M/s Indo Nabin Projects Ltd. Assessment

JAGADISH DAS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as in fructuous

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

section 46A of the I.T Rules. Thus, he refused to admit the same. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee has got the ornament work done only through contractors and sub-contractors and no TDS

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rjesh Kumar, Am ]

46A of the 1962 Rules. No defects in the books of accounts were brought on record by the authorities below nor books of accounts were rejected by the authorities below. If the authorities were not satisfied with aforesaid details, then they ought to have called for further details. In the preceding assessment year i.e. AY 2010-11 and in immediately

EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.,KALYANI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal of assessee is allowed

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

46A of I.T. Act. 4. The first issue raised by Revenue in grounds no. 1 and 2 are inter- related and therefore being taken up together that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.1,00,66,944/- on account of non- deduction of TDS u/s 194H read with section

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KALYANI

In the result, both appeal of assessee is allowed

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

46A of I.T. Act. 4. The first issue raised by Revenue in grounds no. 1 and 2 are inter- related and therefore being taken up together that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.1,00,66,944/- on account of non- deduction of TDS u/s 194H read with section

EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.,KALYANI vs. ITO, WD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal of assessee is allowed

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

46A of I.T. Act. 4. The first issue raised by Revenue in grounds no. 1 and 2 are inter- related and therefore being taken up together that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.1,00,66,944/- on account of non- deduction of TDS u/s 194H read with section

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KALYANI

In the result, both appeal of assessee is allowed

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

46A of I.T. Act. 4. The first issue raised by Revenue in grounds no. 1 and 2 are inter- related and therefore being taken up together that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.1,00,66,944/- on account of non- deduction of TDS u/s 194H read with section

RICKY CHANDRA,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA - X, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal of assessee is allowed

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

46A of I.T. Act. 4. The first issue raised by Revenue in grounds no. 1 and 2 are inter- related and therefore being taken up together that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.1,00,66,944/- on account of non- deduction of TDS u/s 194H read with section

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KALYANI

In the result, both appeal of assessee is allowed

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

46A of I.T. Act. 4. The first issue raised by Revenue in grounds no. 1 and 2 are inter- related and therefore being taken up together that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.1,00,66,944/- on account of non- deduction of TDS u/s 194H read with section

EPCOS INDIA LTD,KALYANI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal of assessee is allowed

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

46A of I.T. Act. 4. The first issue raised by Revenue in grounds no. 1 and 2 are inter- related and therefore being taken up together that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.1,00,66,944/- on account of non- deduction of TDS u/s 194H read with section

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(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise. However the Revenue is disputing the allowability of the above expenses on account

ACIT, CIRCLE-41, NADIA, NADIA vs. M/S SAKTINAGAR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITY LTD., NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 194A which provided that TDS need not be deducted if payment by a co-operative society is made to a resident and the amount of interest so paid does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. The learned DR has not disputed the applicability of the said clause in principle. He however has contended that this stand was not taken

ITO, WD - 41(4). NADIA, NADIA vs. MD. ABUTALEB SURAHABALI KHAN, NADIA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1384/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12) Ito, Ward-41(4), Nadia, Vs. Md. Abutaleb Surahabali Khan, Nediar Para, Ananta Hari Mitra Tehatta Thakur Para Road, Po-Krishnanagar, Dist- P.O.Tehatta-741 160 Nadia, Pin-741 101(Wb) District-Nadia (W.B) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Anrpk 7592 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Sri Nicholas Murmu, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-2012, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata In Appeal No.461/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Wd-41(4)/Nadia/2014- 15, Dated 08.03.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.03.2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant A.Y.2011-2012 On 28.03.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,80,555/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Framed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Making Various Additions. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Ao, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Who Has Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Observing The Followings :-

TDS was not required to be deducted for such payment u/s.40(a)(ia)". The AO has not said as to how the section 40(a)(ia) was violated by the assessee. Thus I find force in the appellant's submissions and the addition is deleted. The AO has estimated the NP at 8% of gross receipts

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHILPA CREATION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal for Revenue is 7

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2005-06

46A of the IT Rules. He further submitted that the provisions of TDS are not applicable on the reimbursement of expenses. The ld. AR in support of his claim relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. DLF Commercial Project Corporation in ITA 627/2012 & 507/2013 vide order dated

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 on such payments on 13-03-12 and directed the AO to verify the same and allow the same in A.Y 2012-13. These facts are not disputed by the both the parties as it can be seen from the record. Therefore, keeping in view of the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi supra