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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS), Range-6, Bank Ltd. Vs. Siliguri (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAAAR6191E Appearances: Assessee represented by : N.C. Mondal, AR. Department represented by : Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 27-November-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 11-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

86,71,881/-” 13. The assessee had claimed depreciation at 100% on hoardings structure. The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of out-door advertisement. The assessee claimed depreciation at 100% on hoarding structures. Under part-A in Appendix-I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) under the head ‘Tangible assets’ entry (4) depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEY'S MEDICAL (U.P.) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06

section 40(a)(ia) was invoked to disallow these expenditures made in the garb of the term 'reimbursement' to avail the dual advantage of reducing profit of the assessee and TDS burden on the payees. He thus submitted that disallowance made by the ld. AOought to be restored. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available

ITO, WD-58(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITD-ITD CEM JV (CONSORTIUM OF ITD ITD CEMENTATION), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

86,995/- u/s 194I of the I.T. Act, 1961. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting charge of TDS and interest of Rs. 13,44,512/- u/s 194A/194H of the I.T. Act, 1961. (c) The appellant craves leave to add, alter / or amend any of the grounds of appeal

MD. HASSAN IMAM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-53(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1211/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Md. Hassan Imami -Vs- Ito, Ward-53(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 5821 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 25.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. For that the Ld. Appellate Authority did not consider the Remand Report dated 27.01.2016 of the Ld. Assessing Officer and disallowed the part addition

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 195 of the Act. The ld. A/R further argued that following the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC) there can be obligation to deduct tax at source only when the remittance is a sum chargeable to tax under the Act. If the income has not accrued in India

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 195 of the Act. The ld. A/R further argued that following the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC) there can be obligation to deduct tax at source only when the remittance is a sum chargeable to tax under the Act. If the income has not accrued in India

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during the course

SUBHAG MERCANTILE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WD-59(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2004-05

86,233 1,82,797 The assessee also submitted that the parties (individual) who have field Form 15G were not subject to TDS under section

M/S. RSD NATURAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD. ,2015-16 vs. DCIT,CIR-9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 794/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Rsd Natural Resources Private Ltd.,.….Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aagcr3203B] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…….Respondent Circle-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Room No. 5/25, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 2Nd, 2024 O R D E R

86,164/-, which has been added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. In other words, ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee has paid clearing charges to various entities and on such charges, it has not deducted TDS

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. RAJA TRANSPORT, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

86,342/- for violation of section 194C of the Act . 2.2. The ld CITA appreciated the contentions of the assessee that there was no verbal or written contract entered into with the owners / drivers of these dumpers used on hire by the assessee and hence the provisions of section 194C of the Act could not be applied and accordingly deleted

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 115JB. The AO is directed to verify the facts and allow the claim of the assessee. The ground of appeal no. 3 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No. 4 The appellant submitted as under: Short grant of TDS Credit (Rs. 86

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 115JB. The AO is directed to verify the facts and allow the claim of the assessee. The ground of appeal no. 3 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No. 4 The appellant submitted as under: Short grant of TDS Credit (Rs. 86

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

section (1) of Sec.90 for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such Gifford and Partners Ltd. (since merged with Gifford LLP). A.Yr.2007-08 agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee

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

section (1) of Sec.90 for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such Gifford and Partners Ltd. (since merged with Gifford LLP). A.Yr.2007-08 agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee

M/S TULSIRAM AGARWALA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-45(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.665/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

86,917/- and it was not taken into account at the time of assessment u/s. 143(3) though the same attracts provision of section 194C read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act." Accordingly, Ld PCIT issued a show cause notice dated 01/11/2018 to the assessee. 4. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted written submissions

MAK LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2), PORT BLAIR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed

86,046/- corresponding to the TDS credit of Rs.3,04,926/- allegedly claimed by the appellant in excess of the total credit reflected in Form 26AS without appreciating that the same would tantamount to addition of the same sum twice and in that view of the matter, the addition being illegal and unsustainable deserves to be deleted. 2. For that

I.T.O., WARD-35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI KAMAL KISHORE TOSHNIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in Ground no

TDS Shri Kamal Kishore Toshniwal Assessment Year: 2012-13 under section 194IB and section 194IA has been deducted. Accordingly, the CIT(A) noted that certain benefits were accrued to the assessee-individual by making the interest-free loans earlier, which have yielded certain incomes in the succeeding years. Based on these facts the CIT(A) relied on the ratio emanating