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

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 was preferred

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 '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 of Rs. 37,33,151 was added back to the total income of the Assessee. The limited prayer of the Assessee before

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 '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 of Rs. 37,33,151 was added back to the total income of the Assessee. The limited prayer of the Assessee before

HITT vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 144C(10) of the Act which reads as under:- 144C(10) – Every direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. Hence we hereby direct the ld AO to follow the directions of the ld DRP in this regard. Accordingly, the Grounds 5 to 8 raised by the assessee for Asst Year

HITT HOLLAND INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY B.V vs. DCIT, (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 144C(10) of the Act which reads as under:- 144C(10) – Every direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. Hence we hereby direct the ld AO to follow the directions of the ld DRP in this regard. Accordingly, the Grounds 5 to 8 raised by the assessee for Asst Year

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rjesh Kumar, Am ]

801/-. Further, on perusal of page 81-83 of the paper book shows that a sum of Rs.4,987/- each was paid to 121 trainees on 08-08-2013 aggregating to Rs.6,03,427/-. He submitted that, these documents could not be produced before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings due to misplacement of relevant files by disgruntled

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SATYANARAYAN PANDEY, HOWRAH

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

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessing officer noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was allowed TDS of Rs.2,38,147/-( Rs.2,30,801

JAY BHARAT CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.883 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10

801/- (49,32,165 – 48,81,364) was held on account of TDS which was lying as outstanding as on 31.3.2009. The assessee agreed for the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act to be made towards the said expenditure for non-remittance of the TDS . The ld AO accordingly disallowed

ITO, WD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PURNA CHANDRA SAHOO, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1344/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito, Wd-44(1), Kolkata Vs. Purna Chandra Sahoo

801/-. If Patel - KNR (JV) find any error in E- TDS Return, certainly TDS Return should also be revised but the assessee not received any revised FORM 16A from Patel - KNR (JV) for theA.Y. 2007-08. The A.O. ignored this fact and without any proper scrutiny and verification of theinformation as collected

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS 2. List of the parties to whom the commission was paid with PAN and their business expertise 3. The services rendered by the commission agents along with the details of sales against which the commission was paid. 4. Details of the nexus between the commission and the business of the assessee. ITA No.206-207/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Arsh

M/S ABHOY CHARAN BAKSHI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] S.A.No.08/Kol/2016 (A/O Ita No.1492/Kol/2015) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Abhoy Charan Bakshi -Vs.- D. C.I.T., Circle-27, Kolkata Haldia [Pan : Aaefm9711E) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Abhoy Charan Bakshi -Vs.- A. C.I.T., Circle-27, Kolkata Haldia [Pan : Aaefm9711E) (Respondent) (Appellant)

801/- for AY 2012-13. With the consent of the parties, the appeal was taken up for hearing. 2. The Assessee has filed the above appeal against the order dated 26.11.2015 of CIT(A)-7, Kolkata, relating to AY 2012-13. 3. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

TDS. But, mere deduction of tax from interest does not prove the alleged loan transaction in the instant case as genuine. It is evident that the intention of the assessee was to drag the time baring proceedings towards the limitation date for the reason best known to him. 7.5 In case of one of the alleged loan creditors, Subrta

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS at sources and thus deleted the addition. The case of assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High court in number of cases namely PCIT-2, Kolkata Vs. Rahul Premier India Agency Private Limited in ITAT/133/2025, IA No.GA/2/2025 vide order dated 05.08.2025, PCIT Vs. M/s Narayan Tradecom Pvt. ltd. in ITAT/76/2025

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS at sources and thus deleted the addition. The case of assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High court in number of cases namely PCIT-2, Kolkata Vs. Rahul Premier India Agency Private Limited in ITAT/133/2025, IA No.GA/2/2025 vide order dated 05.08.2025, PCIT Vs. M/s Narayan Tradecom Pvt. ltd. in ITAT/76/2025

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS at sources and thus deleted the addition. The case of assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High court in number of cases namely PCIT-2, Kolkata Vs. Rahul Premier India Agency Private Limited in ITAT/133/2025, IA No.GA/2/2025 vide order dated 05.08.2025, PCIT Vs. M/s Narayan Tradecom Pvt. ltd. in ITAT/76/2025

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS at sources and thus deleted the addition. The case of assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High court in number of cases namely PCIT-2, Kolkata Vs. Rahul Premier India Agency Private Limited in ITAT/133/2025, IA No.GA/2/2025 vide order dated 05.08.2025, PCIT Vs. M/s Narayan Tradecom Pvt. ltd. in ITAT/76/2025

D.C.I.T.,-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S IDEAL HEIGHTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

section 80IB of the Act. However, according to him, the AO was of the opinion that for the sale proceeds of car parking space and preferential location charges, the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act cannot be given. According to the Ld. AR, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should not be disturbed by this Bench

M/S MINI DAIRY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

TDS deducted on the said expence, he restricted the allowance of the expenditure claimed by the assessee and thus disallowed Rs.18,35,801/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to confirm the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 2 Mini Dairy, AY 2010-11 5. We have heard rival submissions