BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement on time possibly because a separate Section 271H was inserted in the Act. Section 271H will be relevant for our purpose and same for ready reference is reproduced and it reads as under: "Penalty for failure to furnish statements, etc. 271H. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, [the Assessing Officer may direct that a person

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement on time possibly because a separate Section 271H was inserted in the Act. Section 271H will be relevant for our purpose and same for ready reference is reproduced and it reads as under: "Penalty for failure to furnish statements, etc. 271H. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, [the Assessing Officer may direct that a person

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement on time possibly because a separate Section 271H was inserted in the Act. Section 271H will be relevant for our purpose and same for ready reference is reproduced and it reads as under: "Penalty for failure to furnish statements, etc. 271H. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, [the Assessing Officer may direct that a person

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement on time possibly because a separate Section 271H was inserted in the Act. Section 271H will be relevant for our purpose and same for ready reference is reproduced and it reads as under: "Penalty for failure to furnish statements, etc. 271H. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, [the Assessing Officer may direct that a person

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement on time possibly because a separate Section 271H was inserted in the Act. Section 271H will be relevant for our purpose and same for ready reference is reproduced and it reads as under: "Penalty for failure to furnish statements, etc. 271H. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, [the Assessing Officer may direct that a person

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement on time possibly because a separate Section 271H was inserted in the Act. Section 271H will be relevant for our purpose and same for ready reference is reproduced and it reads as under: "Penalty for failure to furnish statements, etc. 271H. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, [the Assessing Officer may direct that a person

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

TDS statement on time possibly because a separate Section 271H was inserted in the Act. Section 271H will be relevant for our purpose and same for ready reference is reproduced and it reads as under: "Penalty for failure to furnish statements, etc. 271H. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, [the Assessing Officer may direct that a person

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEY'S MEDICAL (U.P.) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06

section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. Details of the said expenses are tabulated as under: 4.1. The above tabulated sales promotion expenses were paid to two companies under the same group as below: Dey’s Medical Stores P. Ltd. (DMSPL) : Rs.2,46,69,391/- Dey’s Medical Stores Manufacturing Ltd. (DMSML

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL LOTTERY STOCKISTS SYNDICATE(P)LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

TDS as income from other sources. We also find that there is a clear finding of AO with regard to the income arising to an agent in respect of prize on unsold/unclaimed lottery tickets is business income. There is no doubt that the assessee is an authorized agent of Government of West Bengal. Further, we also find that the tickets

ITO, WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHOK TRADING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shrin.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

TDS on the expense of said charges in terms of section 194C read with section 40(a)(ia). The details of the expenses can be summarized in the following manner : Sl. No. Name of party Amount paid 1 M/s Mithila Shipping Agency Rs.2,69

DCIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 194D of the Act thereby assessee is liable to deduct TDS @ 20%. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice post survey and thereby computed differential/short deduction of TDS at Rs.10,69

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

MADHUSUDANKATI SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 420/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Madhusudankati Samabay Vs. I.T.O.Ward 49(1), Kolkata Krishi Unnayan Samity’ Ltd. Pan : Aaaam 7591 F] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Kakoli Das, Ito For The Respondent : Arvind Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017

TDS, it cannot be said that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80P in respect of the surplus of other trading incomes. Any benefit in relation to “Trade Cost” of Rs. 7,13,572/- is also not available to the assessee as it is only a recovery of expenses with no proven profit embedded therein. In view

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

TDS which was not deposited within the stipulated time after deducting tax I.T.A. No.387/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd from the salaries paid to the employees. The assessing officer disallowed the claim on the grounds that income tax being a disallowable item, interest thereon could not be allowed and that the interest

ISDEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MILKHIRAM MARKET, SAKCHI, JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

69,033/- and consequential interest under section 234C of the Act. The above short grant of TDS of Rs.2,69

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

SHRI DILIP KUMAR NATHANY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

TDS provision were not complied. 2. Name and address of the transporters were not provided. 3. Appellant took various adjournment but no details regarding transportation were submitted. 4. The appellant submitted purchase bill issued by supplier which was showing few truck numbers and that too for the part of the financial year only. In that bill cost and excise duty

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]

69 of the IT Act. The burden of proof can seldom be discharged to the hilt by the assessed; if the AO harbours doubts of the legitimacy of any subscription he is empowered, nay duty-bound, to carry out thorough investigations. But if the AO fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings, he cannot obdurately adhere to his suspicions