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

4) of the Act, this section shall not apply in relation to any cooperative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank. 2. The Department craves the right for alteration, additions, deletion and modification of these grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-41, NADIA, NADIA vs. M/S SAKTINAGAR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITY LTD., NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

80P(2) of the Act. The total income of the assessee thus was determined by the AO at Rs. 49,85,106/- after allowing the deduction of Rs. 50,000/- in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 09.03.2015. 3 I.T.A. No. 2370/Kol/2016 M/s. Saktinagar Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. 3. Against the order passed

DEORAH NAHALA BAIKANTHAPUR SKUS LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(3) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.2484/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deorah Nahala Baikanthapur Skus Ltd.………………………….……Appellant Shyampur-Ii, Ps: Sasati, Village: Deorah, Howrah-711326. [Pan:Aaald0610P] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), Kolkata ………………………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. Sarkar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 08, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2021 Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Against The Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-14, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’).

4 – The assessee vide these grounds has contested the confirmation of addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.66,978/- after denying the deduction claimed by the assessee-society u/s 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The assessee is a primary agricultural credit society registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act and carrying on business of banking

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT(OSD)(TDS),WD-5(3),DARJEELING, DARJEELING.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. THAT on facts of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Income Tax Department was wrong and not justified without considering and completely ignoring that all the payees to whom interests were paid, are co- operative societies and no tax at source was deductible even after amendment in section 194A(3)(v) of the Income

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OP. BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT(OSD)(TDS)WD-5(3), DARJEELING, , DARJEELING.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. THAT on facts of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Income Tax Department was wrong and not justified without considering and completely ignoring that all the payees to whom interests were paid, are co- operative societies and no tax at source was deductible even after amendment in section 194A(3)(v) of the Income

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1),SILIGURI. , SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. THAT on facts of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Income Tax Department was wrong and not justified without considering and completely ignoring that all the payees to whom interests were paid, are co- operative societies and no tax at source was deductible even after amendment in section 194A(3)(v) of the Income

GOGHAT THANA LARGE SIZED PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

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. 1872 /Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Goghat Thana Large Sized Primary -Vs- Acit, Circle-1, Hooghly Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd. [Pan: Aaalg 0062 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 4 5 M/s Goghat Thana

THE ELECTRO URBAN URBAY CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 80P of the Act, in case it is allowed and also the credit of TDS should definitely be available to the appellant. Needless to say, the charging of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act would be consequential upon any amount determined after giving effect to the first appellate order. 5. In the result, the appeal filed

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(2), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

80P of the Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs Income Tax Officer in Civil Appeal No. 7865 of 2009 and has very cryptically mentioned that “In view of the above, it is mandatory for the appellant to pay dividend Distribution Tax as per provisions of section

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

80P of the Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs Income Tax Officer in Civil Appeal No. 7865 of 2009 and has very cryptically mentioned that “In view of the above, it is mandatory for the appellant to pay dividend Distribution Tax as per provisions of section

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(2), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

80P of the Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs Income Tax Officer in Civil Appeal No. 7865 of 2009 and has very cryptically mentioned that “In view of the above, it is mandatory for the appellant to pay dividend Distribution Tax as per provisions of section

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

TDS was availed and based\nupon the confirmation from the bank, which was pending at the time of\nassessment and which must have been received by now, and after\ngranting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after\nconsidering its submission, re-adjudicate this issue on the basis of facts\nand as per law. The assessee claims that

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

TDS was availed and based\nupon the confirmation from the bank, which was pending at the time of\nassessment and which must have been received by now, and after\ngranting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after\nconsidering its submission, re-adjudicate this issue on the basis of facts\nand as per law. The assessee claims that

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

TDS was availed and based\nupon the confirmation from the bank, which was pending at the time of\nassessment and which must have been received by now, and after\ngranting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after\nconsidering its submission, re-adjudicate this issue on the basis of facts\nand as per law. The assessee claims that

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

TDS was availed and based upon the confirmation from the bank, which was pending at the time of assessment and which must have been received by now, and after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering its submission, re-adjudicate this issue on the basis of facts and as per law. The assessee claims that

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

TDS was availed and based\nupon the confirmation from the bank, which was pending at the time of\nassessment and which must have been received by now, and after\ngranting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after\nconsidering its submission, re-adjudicate this issue on the basis of facts\nand as per law. The assessee claims that

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

TDS was availed and based\nupon the confirmation from the bank, which was pending at the time of\nassessment and which must have been received by now, and after\ngranting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after\nconsidering its submission, re-adjudicate this issue on the basis of facts\nand as per law. The assessee claims that

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

80P(2)(a)(i) but would also be applicable to\nall banks/commercial_banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949\napplies.[Para 37]\n■ From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn\nprofit

A.C.PAUL AGRICULTURAL CO. PVT. LTD.,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T.,CIR-1, KOLKATA , SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2469/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C. Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. D.C.I.T., Cir-I, Siliguri Ltd. Vs ‘Arjun Bhawan’ 177, Hill Cart Road Siliguri Darjeeling - 734001 [Pan : Aacca5650M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Siliguri, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Before Taking Cognizance Of The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee In Seriatim, We Deem It Proper To Take Note Of The Brief Background. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Tea Plantation & Manufacturing Of Tea. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/09/2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.96,04,272/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & A Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Passed Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 18/03/2016. The Assessing Officer Has Made Certain

TDS on payment made on account Fine of labour charges, therefore, the said disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 6. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong in holding that the assessee was covered by Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, therefore, the disallowance made