D.C.I.T CIR - 3(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

TDS @ 1% was deducted on the payments and hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

TDS @ 1% was deducted on the payments and hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 E-Infochips Bangalore Ltd 66.57 3 Evoke Tech 4.66 4 Onward Technologies Ltd 11.19 5 R S Software (India) Ltd 17.92 6 Sasken Communications Technologies Ltd 5.70 7 Tata Elxsi Ltd 8.76 8 Thirdware Solutions Private Ltd 37.45 9 Zylog Systems (India) Ltd 28.33 Average 21.08 45 M/s Philips India Ltd. (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd) A.Yr

SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed and appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G of the Act. 12. The High court completely erred in entertaining the appeal under section 260A of the Act. It did not even attempt to deal with the answers to the questions as aforesaid and whether the conclusions drawn by the CIT and the Tribunal were in any way incorrect or invalid. In our view, this appal, therefore, deserves

SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed and appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G of the Act. 12. The High court completely erred in entertaining the appeal under section 260A of the Act. It did not even attempt to deal with the answers to the questions as aforesaid and whether the conclusions drawn by the CIT and the Tribunal were in any way incorrect or invalid. In our view, this appal, therefore, deserves

MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

80G and Rs. 10,00,20,000/- u/s 80M as per Income Tax Return by the AO. 13. For that without prejudice to any other ground taken, the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case to not have dealt with invocation of Section 234A, 234B and Section 234C of the Income

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards payments made without deducting I.T.A. No.: 1711/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. TDS; (ii) disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 80G of the Act towards donation, and (iii) disallowance of claim of deduction

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Patton International Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O Jain Vinod K & Income-Tax, Kolkata-1. Associates, 41A, A. J. C. Vs Bose Road, Diamond . Prestige Nirman, 6Th Floor, Suite No.613, Kolkata- 700017 (Pan: Aabcp7901M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 to 6. After considering the submissions made by the assessee on the three above listed issues, Ld. Pr. CIT concluded that the papers submitted before him were not submitted in the course of assessment proceedings and, therefore, were not verified by the AO in the assessment completed by him. He also noted that whether the approval given u/s. 80G

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 ]

2,40,457/- and the balance sum of Rs.28,80,000/- was on account of salary expenditure, which we have already taken note of while adjudicating the site expenses wherein we noted that site expenses included the salary disbursement of Rs.28,80,000/- was part of the said expenses. When this fact has been accepted by us, so the disallowance

M/S PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 32 of the Act and hence, is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of additions made to the trucks, which were leased out.” The ld AR stated that the assessee herein is a lessee and is entitled for deduction towards lease rentals paid towards cars taken on finance lease. He also stated that the lessor had confirmed that

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CC-3(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, interest on service tax and TDS and miscellaneous other issues. After considering the submissions of the assessee ld. AO assessed the income at Rs.55,13,56,730/- after making following additions to the gross total income of the assessee of Rs.47,96,15,068/- shown by the assessee in the computation of income

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, interest on service tax and TDS and miscellaneous other issues. After considering the submissions of the assessee ld. AO assessed the income at Rs.55,13,56,730/- after making following additions to the gross total income of the assessee of Rs.47,96,15,068/- shown by the assessee in the computation of income

BRAJESWARI RADHARAMAN INTERGENERATIONS HUMANITARIAN TRUST.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

80G, certificate of order u/s 12AA, form no. 10AC, ledger/bill of expenses etc. On examination of the same, the ld. AO disallowed honorarium expenses of Rs. 31,27,452/- and student scholarship expenses of Rs. 52,64,250/- respectively. The ld. AO further on perusal of the financial statement, he noticed that during the assessment year in question assessee

JHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS of Rs. 71,349/- made in the I.T. return was not allowed nor discussed in the assessment order.” 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who took note of the fact that the AO has denied section 11 of the Act exemption to the assessee mainly

M/S AVADH RAIL INFRA LTD EARLIER KNOWN AS AVADH RUBBER PROP., FORMERLY MADRAS ELASTOMERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-7(1). , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 238/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Avadh Rail Infra Ltd. Tax, Circle -7(1), Kolkata Vs [Previously Known As M/S. Madras Elastomers Ltd.] 32, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Kolkata – 700013 [Pan: Aaccm8669A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

TDS in respect of this payment is already explained by the appellant and hence, I do not see any reason to sustain this disallowance. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,17,000/- is directed to be deleted. Commission of Rs. 17,550/- In respect of this payment, the appellant has submitted that in view of the 2no proviso to section

DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S AVADH RAIL INFRA LTD.(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S MADRAS ELASTOMERS LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 238/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Avadh Rail Infra Ltd. Tax, Circle -7(1), Kolkata Vs [Previously Known As M/S. Madras Elastomers Ltd.] 32, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Kolkata – 700013 [Pan: Aaccm8669A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

TDS in respect of this payment is already explained by the appellant and hence, I do not see any reason to sustain this disallowance. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,17,000/- is directed to be deleted. Commission of Rs. 17,550/- In respect of this payment, the appellant has submitted that in view of the 2no proviso to section

S.K.DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 S. K. Development Private Deputycommissioner Of Limited. Income-Tax,Circle- 5(1), Vs. 23A, N. S. Road, 10Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aadcs7398K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G amounting to Rs.1,15,000/­ after due verification instead of allowing the same on the basis of supporting documents filed before him along with written submissions. 4. that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground(s) on or before the date of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case

CHATTERJEE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5 M/s. Chatterjee Management 7) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata erred in confirming the assessment of income of rs.16,85,400 under the head of “Income from other sources”against the head “business income” as claimed by the Appellant Assessee Company. 8) That the Learned Commissioner