N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

TDS u/s 194H of the Act without appreciating that the appellant was engaged in selling liquor to its distributors on a principal-to-principal basis, and the trade discount under various schemes aggregating to INR 10,26,18,968/- could not partake the character of ‘commission’ or ‘brokerage’ for the purpose of Section 194H of the Act and Ground

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

TDS u/s 194H of the Act without appreciating that the appellant was engaged in selling liquor to its distributors on a principal-to-principal basis, and the trade discount under various schemes aggregating to INR 10,26,18,968/- could not partake the character of ‘commission’ or ‘brokerage’ for the purpose of Section 194H of the Act and Ground

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

56,437/-. The dividend income does not form part of the total income and is exempt. In terms of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), the assesee had disallow expenditure incurred in earning exempt income. The assessee quantified the expenses incurred in earning dividend income at Rs.8,66,839/- which comprises of payments made to Reliance Portfolio

M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS deductible Interest Total amount under the including EC thereon from payable cashless 01.01.07 scheme 06-07 12,10,00,000 1,24,63,000/- 63,56,130 18818130 The AO raised the demand of tax along with interest under section

M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS deductible Interest Total amount under the including EC thereon from payable cashless 01.01.07 scheme 06-07 12,10,00,000 1,24,63,000/- 63,56,130 18818130 The AO raised the demand of tax along with interest under section

A.C.I.T(TDS) CIR - 57,KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS deductible Interest Total amount under the including EC thereon from payable cashless 01.01.07 scheme 06-07 12,10,00,000 1,24,63,000/- 63,56,130 18818130 The AO raised the demand of tax along with interest under section

HERIGAGE HEALTH TPA(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(TDS), CIRCLE -57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS deductible Interest Total amount under the including EC thereon from payable cashless 01.01.07 scheme 06-07 12,10,00,000 1,24,63,000/- 63,56,130 18818130 The AO raised the demand of tax along with interest under section

M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-57(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS deductible Interest Total amount under the including EC thereon from payable cashless 01.01.07 scheme 06-07 12,10,00,000 1,24,63,000/- 63,56,130 18818130 The AO raised the demand of tax along with interest under section

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

56. Income from other sources\n'Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total\nincome under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the\nhead 'Income from other sources', if it is not chargeable to income-tax\nunder any of the heads specified in section 14 items A to E.'\n\"Reliance

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

section 9(1) of the Act. The Honble Madras High Court therefore held that the position of law in relation to deduction of TDS on payment of commission to overseas ITA No.1786/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 DCIT Cir-15(2), Kol. Vs. M/s L.G.W. Ltd. Page 5 agent would continue as before and Circular No. 786 of 2000 still holds good

PARTHA PRATIM CHAKRABARTY,BANKURA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1520/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Partha Pratim Chakrabarty,……..……….……Appellant Katjuridanga, P.O. Kenduadihi, Dist. Bankura-722102, West Bengal [Pan:Acepc4256E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-3(1), Bankura, Income Tax Office, Kenduadihi, P.O. Kenduadihi, Dist. Bankura-722102 Appearances By: Shri D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Bonnine Debbarma, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 09, 2024 O R D E R

section 56(2)(vii) and (x) of the Income Tax Act. It emerges out that the assessee has submitted that this flat was purchased by his mother Sabita Chakrabarty, who has paid Rs.71,00,000/- and deducted TDS

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ANS LEATHER COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1071/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata Vs. Ans Leather Company

56 ITD 561 (Kol) wherein it was held as follows: “We find that the assessee has given names and addresses of the suppliers and has furnished all particulars and details of purchases. The assessee has also produced books of account and pass books and has furnished copies of bills, account payee cheque Nos. and sales-tax Nos. etc. Although

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

56,914/- and Rs. 2,11,332/- (totaling to Rs. 16,68,246, being the impugned amount) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have confirmed this action of the AO. 1.3. Aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal which essentially challenge the additions

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

56,914/- and Rs. 2,11,332/- (totaling to Rs. 16,68,246, being the impugned amount) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have confirmed this action of the AO. 1.3. Aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal which essentially challenge the additions

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

TDS as per provisions of section 195 of the IT Act 1961 therefore the total deduction of expenditure at Rs.63, 56

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

TDS as per provisions of section 195 of the IT Act 1961 therefore the total deduction of expenditure at Rs.63, 56

POREL DASS WATER & EFFLUENT CONTROL PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-13(3), KOLKATA, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1354/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

TDS shall be deducted on the whole of the invoice value. From the above clarification provided in the Memorandum leaves no element of doubt and the definition of ‘work’ as occurring in Explanation below to section 194Cof the Act, does not apply to the assessee under consideration so far his claim of deduction under section 80IA

ITO, WARD - 13(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. POREL DASS WATER & EFFLUENT CONTROL PVT. LTD., , HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1354/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

TDS shall be deducted on the whole of the invoice value. From the above clarification provided in the Memorandum leaves no element of doubt and the definition of ‘work’ as occurring in Explanation below to section 194Cof the Act, does not apply to the assessee under consideration so far his claim of deduction under section 80IA