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)

ii) Examination of assessment record revealed that the assessee company paid commission of Rs.4,84,00,000/-each to Hari Prasad Budhia and Sanjay Budhia (both director of the assessee company) during the F. Yr. 2016-17. However, no TDS was made thereon on or before due date of filing of the return of income

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

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

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

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

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)

II I, 856 H Sp ac e S al t 1006 l ake, Kol ­1 06 27 .06 .201 2 M ano j K u mar CF 333, AA IFK 94 81,000 8, 10 0 DN 24 , 27.06 .2 01 2 35 ,0 5 ,0 00 Ak el a S ec­1

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]

ii. Ratio of expenditure on establishment and administration to expenditure on objects of the trusts is high. iii. Large amount deemed to have been applied for charitable or religious purpose.” 2 A.Y. 2020-21 Brajeswari Radharaman Intergenerations Humanitarian Trust (Bright) 3. Later on notice u/s 143(2) as well as 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued upon

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)

ii) of sub-section (1) of section 36, or (d) any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loan or borrowing, or (e) any sum payable

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)

ii) of sub-section (1) of section 36, or (d) any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loan or borrowing, or (e) any sum payable

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

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)

II in the Paper Book filed by us. The ld TPO simply replied in his remand report filed before the ld DRP to these emails and the reply of the assessee by stating that the services rendered are only in the nature of control, supervisory and monitoring functions. The assessee in turn filed rejoinder to this remand report by specifically

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

TDS not made (as per audit report) has also been disallowed by the assessee. In view of the above, no adverse inference is drawn and assessment is completed on returned income.” 5. In the computation of income, the income as per the return of income filed was taken as Rs. ‘Nil’ to which the income as computed

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

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ii) Final\nMine Closure Plan - this would start towards the end of mine life. The\nguidelines of Ministry of Coal also provide that the total cost involved\nfor the Final Closure Plan is required to be estimated on a reasonable\nbasis at the time of making Project Report / Mining Plan itself. The\nmoney is levied per hectare of mining lease

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ii) above, from which it is certain that a reliable estimate of the obligation could not made at the time of preparing accounts by the assessee itself but the same is made according to the guideline of Government in this behalf. According the Accounts Standard-29, a provision shall be recognised when: (a) a person has a present obligation

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance