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

77,365/-. 8. So far addition on account of bogus Sundry Creditor of Rs.14,84,385/-, is concerned, we note that sundry creditor of the assessee, Mr. Md. AkeelAhmed to the tune of Rs.14,84,385/- has been coming in the books of accounts of the assessee from the previous year, as an opening balance. This is not a liability

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

77/[2009] 314 ITR 309 . However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, made it clear that such reversal was only because of the amendment which entered force on September 18, 2003, but w.e.f. 1-4-1983. By reason of the said amendment, an explanation was added to Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the IT Act which provided that Usance interest

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

77/[2009] 314 ITR 309 . However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, made it clear that such reversal was only because of the amendment which entered force on September 18, 2003, but w.e.f. 1-4-1983. By reason of the said amendment, an explanation was added to Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the IT Act which provided that Usance interest

SRI SUTANU MAHANTY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-53, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

77,62,130/- which were paid to the owner of the sites, Government and to the sub licensee. The assessee deducted TDS only on Rs.45,36,150/- and failed to deduct TDS on the balance payment of Rs.1,32,25,980/-. Therefore, The AO disallowed the same on account of non-deduction of TDS under section

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

77,CIT Vs Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products & Camphor Works (SC) 231 ITR 53,J.K Charitable Trust Vs WTO & Ors. (All) 222 ITR 523] b. Special Leave petition dismissed with speaking order is declaration of law by Supreme Court - After rejection of SLP, lower Courts can review its order - Once SLP is admitted, lower Courts have no jurisdiction to review

AXIX OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

77,299/- without considering facts of the case due to following issues. a) Ld. CIT(A)-VI, Kol erred in allowing relief to the assessee for Rs.6315/- towards interest on TDS on delayed deposit of TDs in Central Govt. A/c without considering the fact that said interest debited in the account is an inadmissible item

I.T.O WD - 6(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S AXIX OVERSEAS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

77,299/- without considering facts of the case due to following issues. a) Ld. CIT(A)-VI, Kol erred in allowing relief to the assessee for Rs.6315/- towards interest on TDS on delayed deposit of TDs in Central Govt. A/c without considering the fact that said interest debited in the account is an inadmissible item

LIFE SAVINGS SOCIETY OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2365/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & I.T.A. No. 2366/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016

TDS of Rs.22,996/- was served before grant of registration under section 12A for A.Y. 2015-16. Petition under section 154 for rectification of the said demand of Rs.9,77

LIFE SAVING SOCIETY OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2365/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & I.T.A. No. 2366/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016

TDS of Rs.22,996/- was served before grant of registration under section 12A for A.Y. 2015-16. Petition under section 154 for rectification of the said demand of Rs.9,77

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

section 197 of the Act. Therefore, argument ITA No.1517-1519/Kol/2009 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 Indian Oil Corpn Ltd. Marketing Divn. (E) Region v. DCIT Cir-58 (TDS0 Kol. Page 6 raised by assessee cannot be accepted that payment is not in the nature of work contracts and therefore not allowable due to non deduction of TDS. In view

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

YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

77,21,330/- as unexplained expenditure (Section 69C) and the related addition\nof 88% of lorry expenses as income are upheld due to the appellant's failure to\nprovide credible evidence, including valid> bills, vouchers, and proof of genuine\ntransportation expenses. The disallowance of Iprry expenses due to non-\ndeduction of TDS

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

DCIT/CIR-12/KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

77,800/- formed part of Section 80IC deduction in respect of Parwanu unit whereas the entire interest of Rs. 3,39,26,000/- stands disallowed/added in both the lower proceedings. It pleads double addition of interest income amounting to Rs. 2,37,48,200/- therefore. Learned CIT DR on the other hand vehemently contends that there is no dispute

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T, RANGE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

77,800/- formed part of Section 80IC deduction in respect of Parwanu unit whereas the entire interest of Rs. 3,39,26,000/- stands disallowed/added in both the lower proceedings. It pleads double addition of interest income amounting to Rs. 2,37,48,200/- therefore. Learned CIT DR on the other hand vehemently contends that there is no dispute

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

77,800/- formed part of Section 80IC deduction in respect of Parwanu unit whereas the entire interest of Rs. 3,39,26,000/- stands disallowed/added in both the lower proceedings. It pleads double addition of interest income amounting to Rs. 2,37,48,200/- therefore. Learned CIT DR on the other hand vehemently contends that there is no dispute

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

77,800/- formed part of Section 80IC deduction in respect of Parwanu unit whereas the entire interest of Rs. 3,39,26,000/- stands disallowed/added in both the lower proceedings. It pleads double addition of interest income amounting to Rs. 2,37,48,200/- therefore. Learned CIT DR on the other hand vehemently contends that there is no dispute