SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T.(TDS), CIRCLE - 5 , GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T.(TDS), CIRCLE - 5, GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKAM vs. D.C.I.T. (TDS), CIRCLE - 5, GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T.(TDS), CIRCLE - 5, GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A

SIKKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T. (TDS), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T. (TDS), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T. (TDS), CIRCLE - 5, GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5, GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T. (TDS), CIRCLE - 5, GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,RANGPO, EAST SIKKIM vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 5, GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A

ITO(TDS),WD-58(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEJRIWAL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

6A) are not applicable in this case ignoring the following facts completely :- 2 ITA Nos.249-253 & CO.No.39/Kol/2013-B-AM Sri Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal 1. The Provisions of section 206C (1) are very clear and unambiguous and provides for TCS on sale of all timber whether the same is obtained under the forest lease or other modes. Each and every timber which

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Making reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. CIT Excise & Others - 2015 (326) ELT 209 (S.C.), he contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment has observed that an omission is also one of the modes

M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Making reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. CIT Excise & Others - 2015 (326) ELT 209 (S.C.), he contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment has observed that an omission is also one of the modes

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the issues, which are in challenge before us. 7. So far as the main issue relating to deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is concerned, the ld. CIT(A), confirmed the 7 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the issues, which are in challenge before us. 7. So far as the main issue relating to deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is concerned, the ld. CIT(A), confirmed the 7 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the issues, which are in challenge before us. 7. So far as the main issue relating to deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is concerned, the ld. CIT(A), confirmed the 7 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the issues, which are in challenge before us. 7. So far as the main issue relating to deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is concerned, the ld. CIT(A), confirmed the 7 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

6A) clearly lays down that deduction claimed shall not be admissible unless the assessee also furnishes along with the return the audit report in prescribed form duly signed and verified by the accountant. There could indeed be no escape from the conclusion that the requirement of the audit report being filed along with the return of income was mandatory. Thus