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

61,897/- under section 201 of the Act. 3.1. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in alleging that the trade discount were in the nature of commission and thereby subject to TDS

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]

61,448/- and roads including road medians and street lighting amounting to Rs.93,81,021/-. The revenue generated by Advertisement was to recoup the cost of development. This was claimed by the assessee to be income derived by the assessee from carrying on the business of ITA No.2616/Kol/2013-M/s. Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 7 developing, operating and maintaining infrastructure facility

BIKASH KUMAR MONDAL,ARAMBAGH vs. ITO WARD 1(4) HOOGHLY, CHINSURA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

61,310/-. The ld. Assessing Officer made the addition on two grounds, firstly disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS under section 194 on the reimbursement of salary of seconded I.T.A. Nos. 1671/KOL./2008 & 1024/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 & I.T.A. Nos. 1699/KOL/2008 & 973/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 10 of 34 employees. Keeping in view these decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nagase India Pvt. Limited (supra) and Temasek

SMT. CHETNA JAIN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

61,059/-, however, was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the relevant TDS as per the certificate filed by the assessee was related to assessment year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that there was no mistake in disallowing the credit for TDS while processing the return of income of the assessee under section

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

61,250/- 10,00,000/- 4. Abdur Rahim 16,21 ,170/- 16,21,170/- 5. Md. Wasi 12,64,400/- 12,54,400/- 6.Hasibur 16,48,200/- 1,48,200/- 15,00,000/- Rahman 7. Md. Naushad 16,72,835/- 1,72,835/- 15,00,000/- The assessee claimed to have purchased Raw Hide & Skin from the above parties

M/S DHAMEJA MINING,SIKKIM vs. ITO, WD-2(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

61, and the addition may please be deleted. 3. For that on the facts of the case the assessment order dated 26/03/2013, remained in the custody and in control of the A.O beyond the time barring limit, till 19th April, 2013, is barred by limitation, and may please be cancelled. 4. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during the course

I.T.O WD - 3(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S AMIYA CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

61,64,068/- by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was observed by the AO that the assessee has made payment to various parties as labour charges without deducting TDS

ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. SHRI SUJOY KRISHNA JANA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm I.T.A. No. 1253/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle 27 Haldia..………………………………………………………….............................Appellant Dubey House, Basudevpur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Purba Medinipur – 721 602. Shri Sujoy Krishna Jana.................................…...........................................................Respondent Jasora, Panskura, Purba Medinipur – 721 636. [Pan: Acipj 7166 J] C.O. No. 47/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1253/Kol/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sujoy Krishna Jana.................................…....................................................Cross-Objector Jasora, Panskura, Purba Medinipur – 721 636. [Pan: Acipj 7166 J] Acit, Circle 27 Haldia..………………………………………………………….......................Respondent Dubey House, Basudevpur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Purba Medinipur – 721 602. Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Udyan Dasgupta, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 9Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2018 Order

61, for non deduction of TDS may please be deleted. 4.2 Before me during the appeal the appellant stated that there was no sub- -contractor engaged by the appellant for executing-any labour contract. Initially the TDS was deducted for Rs.98,643/- from the payments made to his own employees i.e. Ashok Prasad and Ashim Samanta who have withdrawn

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWAJIT GUHA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

TDS. In this connection we rely in the judgment of Hon’ble Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Rinku Mallick ITAT no. 96 of 2012, GA No. 1368 of 2012 where it was held as under:- “We have heard the learned Counsel Smt. Sinha [Das de], appearing for the appellant, and we have gone through

SRI MANINDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR,BURDWAN vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2201/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Manindra Mohan Vs. J.C.I.T, Range-1, Asansol Mazumdar Sahana Apartment Mother Teressa 19, Radhangar Road, Burnpur- 713325, Road, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – Dist- Burdwan. 713304. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aelpm 0074 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS credit to the tune of Rs.60,004/- on mobilization advance and not entire contract receipts were received in the relevant Assessment Year. 3. Now, we shall take first grievance of the assessee, which relatesto disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A read with rule 8D to the tune of Rs.3,61

SHREYANS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 263 of the Act dated 04/12/2015 on the issue of non-deduction of TDS on commission payments made to a concern named M/s. Suryamukhi Project Pvt. Ltd. (“SPPL”) and the assessee was also showing income from commission. Thereafter the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2016 after making an addition of ₹33,61

SHREYANS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 263 of the Act dated 04/12/2015 on the issue of non-deduction of TDS on commission payments made to a concern named M/s. Suryamukhi Project Pvt. Ltd. (“SPPL”) and the assessee was also showing income from commission. Thereafter the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2016 after making an addition of ₹33,61

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. MARKETING DIVISION (EASTERN REGION),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 58 (TDS)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

TDS under section 194-C of the Act there has to be written or unwritten works contract. Now it is important to understand the meaning of works contract in the context of infrastructure facility used by the assessee. From the facts we find that in the instant case the assessee was buying the petroleum products from BRPL. Besides the above

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-TDS, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 201 of the Act for not deduction of TDS u/s. 194LA of the Act on the payment of Rs.1,14,61

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. JCIT, R-59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 201 of the Act for not deduction of TDS u/s. 194LA of the Act on the payment of Rs.1,14,61

M/S KHALSA BROTHERS,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in Ground No

61, for non deduction of TDS u/s 194C, in a transaction of purchase and sale of machine spares (duly supported by VAT tax invoice) and the addition illegally sustained may please be deleted. 6.For the that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.45,65,154/- on A/c of depreciation, on heavy vehicles, when the claim