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

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

M/S GOLD TOUCH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

TDS does not arise. In this connection, we find support and guidance from the case of HH Rama Verma Vs CIT 187 ITR 308 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : The language used in section 80G(2)(a ) is clear and unambiguous. The use of the expression 'any sums paid' contemplates payment of an amount

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

TDS on the said genuine unsecured loan is completely unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred on facts and in law in having upheld the addition of Rs.4,12,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the specious ground of unexplained share application money with premium received during

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

TDS on the said genuine unsecured loan is completely unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred on facts and in law in having upheld the addition of Rs.4,12,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the specious ground of unexplained share application money with premium received during

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

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

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 ]

80G of the Act, such donation is not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and hence the sum was disallowed in the assessment order. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee has come before us. 32. Heard both the parties. It is noted that the subscription has been paid to different committees

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

5,41,897/- disallowed under 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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

80G of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and (vi)Addition on account of undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed. The Ld. CIT(A) has directed

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

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

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

M/S ART-E-MIDE CONSTRACTION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLA-10(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 194C of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case was not attracted so, no disallowance was warranted. Therefore, we direct AO to delete the addition of Rs. 5,57,909/-. 7. Ground nos. 5 and 6 raised by the assessee are against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition under the head “donation

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

TDS. The following were the relevant observations of the CIT(A) in this regard: “49. I have carefully considered the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. The appellant has produced necessary challans in respect of Rs.96,38,368/-. The appellant has further submitted - at it could not ,produce the balance challans amounting

D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT & CO, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Circle-4, P-7, V/S. M/S Gillanders Arbuthnot Chowringhee Square & Co. Ltd., C-4, Gilander Kolkata-700 069 House, N.S.Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan No.Aaacg 9832 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised following ground no. 3: “3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.552692/- on account of non deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) in view of the judgment given

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

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