D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

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

TDS in similar facts and circumstances. He also appears to have taken into consideration various legislative amendments in section 9(1) as well as section 9(2) of the Act to raise the impugned demand of principal and interest u/s 201(1) and section 201(1a) of Rs.72,05,567/ and Rs.23,05,781/-; respectively. 3. The assessee preferred appeal

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

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

TDS in similar facts and circumstances. He also appears to have taken into consideration various legislative amendments in section 9(1) as well as section 9(2) of the Act to raise the impugned demand of principal and interest u/s 201(1) and section 201(1a) of Rs.72,05,567/ and Rs.23,05,781/-; respectively. 3. The assessee preferred appeal

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

TDS-3 Vs M/s Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd [ ITA No. 63/Mum/09]. I however find the submissions of the ld. AR to be untenable in the context of the amendments brought in Section 9(1)(vii) by the Legislature in the Finance Act, 2010. 5

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

5(2) of the IT Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 195(1) of the IT Act were attracted and the assesses were obliged to deduct tax at source failing which, such expenditure, could not be exempted under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act.” (ii) Similarly, the Hon'ble ITAT Panaji Bench in the case of Asstt

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

5(2) of the IT Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 195(1) of the IT Act were attracted and the assesses were obliged to deduct tax at source failing which, such expenditure, could not be exempted under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act.” (ii) Similarly, the Hon'ble ITAT Panaji Bench in the case of Asstt

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

5. Heard both the sides. At the outset, we note that the grounds of appeal relate to disallowance made 43B read with section u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totalling to Rs.10,10,774/-. The issue relating to grounds taken

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

TDS). It is a provision requiring tax to be deducted at source to be paid to the Revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non- resident. Therefore, section 195 has to be read in conformity with the charging provisions, i.e., sections 4, 5 and 9. This reasoning flows from the words "sum chargeable under the provisions

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

5] [In favour of assessee] 10. The learned DR has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention where the assessee is not able to prove the genuineness of the liability, they can be brought to tax u/s 41(1) of the Act. a) In the case of ACIT vs. Dattatray Poultry Breeding Farm (P) Ltd, 95 Taxmann.com

M/S. BENGAL TEA & FABRICS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13

Section 5(2)(b) r.w.s 9(1)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee was under obligation to deduct the ITA No.1667/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Bengal Tea & Fabrics Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kol. Page 3 TDS

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS on rent paid for two properties @ 1,08,000 each totalling Rs.2,16,000 and the same ought to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, I limit the disallowance to Rs.2.16.000 and the balance rent Rs.9,66,000 is allowed.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is before

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

1,27,500/- each, and the amount\nwas below the threshold limit of ₹ 180,000/- for deduction of TDS and\nPage | 16\nITA No.: 974, 975 & 2237/KOL/2024\n Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14\nRaiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.\ntherefore, no TDS was required to be made. The Ld. AO added the amount\nas the shares of each

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

5 thereof which takes within its purview the territorial nexus on the basis whereof tax is required to be levied. Whatever is payable to a non- resident by way of FTS would not always come within the purview of section 9(1)(vii)(c) of the Act. It must have sufficient territorial nexus with India so as to furnish

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

5 thereof which takes within its purview the territorial nexus on the basis whereof tax is required to be levied. Whatever is payable to a non- resident by way of FTS would not always come within the purview of section 9(1)(vii)(c) of the Act. It must have sufficient territorial nexus with India so as to furnish

AZHARUL HAQUE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

TDS was reported in statement 26AS in the assessee’s name. In the return furnished, the assessee however did not include the said allowance in his total income on the plea that it was not income earned or accrued in India and therefore not forming part of the total income in terms of Section 5(2) read with Section

BALAKALYAN CHOWDARY MARATHU,KADAPA vs. CIT(IT&TP), KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

TDS was reported in statement 26AS in the assessee’s name. In the return furnished, the assessee however did not include the said allowance in his total income on the plea that it was not income earned or accrued in India and therefore not forming part of the total income in terms of Section 5(2) read with Section

SAMIR KUMAR NAYAK ,BALASORE vs. CIT(IT&TP), KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

TDS was reported in statement 26AS in the assessee’s name. In the return furnished, the assessee however did not include the said allowance in his total income on the plea that it was not income earned or accrued in India and therefore not forming part of the total income in terms of Section 5(2) read with Section

MAHESH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. CIT(IT&TP), KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

TDS was reported in statement 26AS in the assessee’s name. In the return furnished, the assessee however did not include the said allowance in his total income on the plea that it was not income earned or accrued in India and therefore not forming part of the total income in terms of Section 5(2) read with Section