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) was invoked by the AO to disallow these expenditures made in the garb of the term 'reimbursement' to avail the dual 15 Dey’s Medical (UP) Pvt. ltd. AY 2005-06 advantage of reducing profit and TDS burden on the payees. It was prayed that the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this count

I.T.O WD - 7(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S WINSOME BREWERIES LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

TDS) (2006) 281 ITR 99 (Bom), wherein it is held that supply of printed materials constitutes sale under the sale of Goods Act; and section 194C of the Act is not applicable. In that case it 5 Winsome Breweries Ltd. AY 2009-10 was held that supply of printed packaging labels merely because the printing was done as per requirement/specifications

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

72,292/- debited in the P/L account of the appellant, by wrongfully invoking Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. FOR THAT, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no obligation upon the appellant to deduct tax at source (TDS

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

72,292/- debited in the P/L account of the appellant, by wrongfully invoking Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. FOR THAT, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no obligation upon the appellant to deduct tax at source (TDS

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

72,327/- in contravention of section 194 I of the Act and disallowed and added the same to the income of the Assessee under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. The CIT-A confirmed the addition by observing as under: 7. The effect of non admission of SLP is as under: a. Rejection of SLP does not mean that

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

72,835/- 15,00,000/- The assessee claimed to have purchased Raw Hide & Skin from the above parties. In the case at Sl.No.2, Md. Akeel Ahmed, there is no transaction during the year and Rs.14,84,385/- was outstanding for over a year, therefore, the assessing officer noted that it is improbable that in this line of business

TEESTA VALLEY EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri, S.S. Godaraassessment Year :2013-14 Teesta Valley Exports Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(2) Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th 3, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001. Floor, P-7, [Pan No Aaact 9980 D] Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 18-07-2018

TDS liability by making payment through middleman credited by him. The only ground as taken by the assessee is that the amount was paid to these two persons were reimbursed. In view of above, the order of the AO is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 3. Learned Authorised Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

TDS on payments made to National Neuroscience Centre. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 04-03-2014 enhanced the disallowance to Rs. 1,70,28,307/-, thus an additional sum of Rs.44,44,625/- (Rs.1

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

TDS on payments made to National Neuroscience Centre. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 04-03-2014 enhanced the disallowance to Rs. 1,70,28,307/-, thus an additional sum of Rs.44,44,625/- (Rs.1

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S FIVES STEIN INDIA PROJECTS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

72 ITR 603 (SC) ITA No.91/Kol/2011-C-AM 2 M/s. Fives Stein (I) Projects P.Ltd e) Sir Kikabhai Premchand case reported in 24 ITR 506 (SC) In response to this, the Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO. 3.2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We are in agreement with the arguments

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

TDS on retention money during 8 I.T.A. No. 498/Kol/2018 & 2149/Kol/2017 M/s. EMC. Ltd., Assessment Year: 2014-15 the year, the retention money has to be included as income accrued during the assessment year in question which action, according to ld. AR, is erroneous. 9. The Ld. AR further submitted that though the assessee entered amount of gross bills

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS was actually made and paid to the credit of Central Government. 5. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal." We shall first take up the appeal in ITA No. 974/KOL/2024 for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , KOLKATA vs. P N MEMORIAL NEURO CENTRE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The Registry informed that there is delay in filing of the appeal by the Revenue by 178 days and condonation petition for the said delay has been filed by the revenue. On perusal of the contents of the condonation petition, we find that the reasons

M/S. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

TDS Bangalore vs Vodafone South Ltd reported in (2016) 72 taxmann.com 347 (Karnataka) vide order dated 28.7.2016 , wherein the head notes read as under:- Section

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS was actually made and paid to the credit of Central Government. 5. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or delete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final disposal of this appeal." We shall first take up the appeal in ITA No. 974/KOL/2024 for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

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

section 68 of the Act in the absence of creditworthiness of these parties and made addition. We find no reason to sustain the same, as the very basis is not doubted by the AO, and assessee has discharged its onus by filing all the details before the AO. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue

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

section 28(iv) of the Act by way of crediting the net consideration in the audited accounts and claiming the credit of TDS on the 'grossed up' amount. The certificates of GRSE totalled to Rs. 28,126,740 whereas the Assessee has accounted for only Rs. 24,393,588 in the audited profit and loss accounts. Therefore the difference

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

section 28(iv) of the Act by way of crediting the net consideration in the audited accounts and claiming the credit of TDS on the 'grossed up' amount. The certificates of GRSE totalled to Rs. 28,126,740 whereas the Assessee has accounted for only Rs. 24,393,588 in the audited profit and loss accounts. Therefore the difference