SUBHAG MERCANTILE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WD-59(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2004-05

65,941 26,595 @ 10.0% 3 To individuals who submitted their 9,58,708 Nil 15G 4. to an individual (non-taxable) 4,511 Nil 19,86,233 1,82,797 The assessee also submitted that the parties (individual) who have field Form 15G were not subject to TDS under section

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

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 4, DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

65,801/-, Rs.26,44,471/- and Rs.1,40,84,405/- respectively and raised a total demand of Rs.6,55,20,378/- against the assessee vide an order dated 16.01.2017 passed under section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. 4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, an appeal

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 4, DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

65,801/-, Rs.26,44,471/- and Rs.1,40,84,405/- respectively and raised a total demand of Rs.6,55,20,378/- against the assessee vide an order dated 16.01.2017 passed under section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. 4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, an appeal

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 4, DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

65,801/-, Rs.26,44,471/- and Rs.1,40,84,405/- respectively and raised a total demand of Rs.6,55,20,378/- against the assessee vide an order dated 16.01.2017 passed under section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. 4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, an appeal

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)

65,15,375/- and incurred carriage inward expenses of Rs.29,19,508/-. It was the further submission of the assessee that the transportation was arranged and organized by the sellers and the payments were made on consignment basis. Since there was no direct contract between the transporter and the assessee, therefore, the provision of section 194C is not applicable

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAHUL SARAF (HUF), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 710/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

65,83,460/- on account of non- deduction of TDS u/s 40a(ia) of the Act as under: “12. In regard to the Ground No.12, relevant observation of the Assessing Officer made in the assessment order dated 31.03.2015 is reproduced below: Rent: The assessee has made payment as Rent to different parties which come under the preview of the section

ITO, WD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M.S.K. TRAVELS AND TOURS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

65,000/- without deducting TDS thereupon. This appears to be the second round of proceedings before the tribunal. The tax payer had earlier filed its appeal ITA No.458/Kol/2012 challenging correctness of the impugned section

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

TDS on the payment made by GRSE (i.e. the payer) but did not include the full amount of receipt from GRSE. The treatment given by the assessee in its accounts as well as in computation of its total income was contrary to the provisions of Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount

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

TDS on the payment made by GRSE (i.e. the payer) but did not include the full amount of receipt from GRSE. The treatment given by the assessee in its accounts as well as in computation of its total income was contrary to the provisions of Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS under section 194C of the Act. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(a) on account of ocean freight to the extent of Rs.28.24 crores. The deletion of disallowance by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of balance amount

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers V/S. Acit, Circle-2(2), Pvt.Ltd., Block-Ep, Plot-Y-14, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-91 Kokata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 9181 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata’S Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2017, Involving Proceedings Section 144C R.W. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Assessee Appellant’S First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenge Correctness Of Transfer Price Adjustment Amounting To ₹345,51,562/- In Course Of Assessment As Pertaining To Its International Transactions With Its Overseas Associate Enterprise (Ae). This Assessee Is A Company Providing Consultancy Including Tax & Regulatory Services. It Filed Its Return On 30.11.2012 Stating Total Income Of ₹51,62,16,310/-. This Followed Its Revised Return Dated 31.03.2014 Reducing Its Taxable Income To ₹49,87,12,700/-. The Assessing Officer Took Up Scrutiny. He Came Across

65,80,718/-. An amount of ₹8,60,919/- is stated to have not attracted the said TDS deduction. He is fair enough in informing us that assessee has itself disallowed an amount of ₹475,48,648/- in tax computation valued by credit entries / reversal of ₹297,53,220/- corresponding reimbursement to employees’ are stated to be involving an amount

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS and also has failed to produce the persons to whom these payments were made, therefore the expenses on account of bill discounting and serves charges amounting to Rs.1,45,654/- is disallowed. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 16. Before us, the ld.AR contended that the section 194H

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

65,92,864/- while the balance amount of Rs.60,92 442/- had been provided in the books as “estimated liability’ on which TDS was neither deducted nor paid. According to him, it is evident that the sum of Rs.60,92,442/- is merely an estimated liability arising out of a contractual obligation which is under dispute and the arbitration proceedings

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

65,184/- as on 31.03.2005 out of which a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- was invested to acquire equity shares of the assessee company. The AO just presumed that share applicant Anita Mookin does not have source of income but we find that the immediate source of investment is clearly reflected in the Balance Sheet of the shareholder which

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

65,184/- as on 31.03.2005 out of which a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- was invested to acquire equity shares of the assessee company. The AO just presumed that share applicant Anita Mookin does not have source of income but we find that the immediate source of investment is clearly reflected in the Balance Sheet of the shareholder which

A.C.I.T CIR - 3,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S SUKH CHAIN ISPAT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., RAIGANJ

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

65,966/- on A/c of non-deduction of tax at source as per provisions of Section 194C of the I.T.Act, 1961. It has been observed during the course of assessment that the payment to M/s. S.S.Raisers Pvt. Ltd. Is not directly payment made to railways (Govt.) and hence the assessee’s contention of not making TDS