ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

90(2). In our opinion, the assessee therefore cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case of payments made to non-resident persons having taxable income in India in spite of their failure to furnish the Permanent Account Numbers. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to this Special Bench

MAITHAN ALLOYS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (IT), WD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

2,52,906/- 24,040/- Aggrieved by the AO's action of deducting TDS at the rate of 20% instead of 10% as deducted by the appellant, it has filed the appeal." Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss the same. Aggrieved, assessee is before

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

SREI ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MANAGERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

90(2). In our opinion, the assessee therefore cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case of payments made to non­resident persons having taxable income in India in spite of their failure to furnish the Permanent Account Numbers. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to this Special Bench

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

90 or, as the case may be, deduction from the Indian income-tax payable under section 91. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90A;” I.T.A. No.387/Kol/2021

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS on rent paid for two properties @ 1,08,000 each totalling Rs.2,16,000 and the same ought to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, I limit the disallowance to Rs.2.16.000 and the balance rent Rs.9,66,000 is allowed.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is before

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

90% of the user of the aircrafts relates to business purposes and the remaining 10% relates to non-business purposes. Therefore, by applying the provisions of section 38(2) of the Act, the proportionate expenditure 5 A.Yrs.2011-12 incurred on running , repairs & maintenance of the aircrafts and depreciation were disallowed by the ld AO as under:- Expenditure on running

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

90% of the user of the aircrafts relates to business purposes and the remaining 10% relates to non-business purposes. Therefore, by applying the provisions of section 38(2) of the Act, the proportionate expenditure 5 A.Yrs.2011-12 incurred on running , repairs & maintenance of the aircrafts and depreciation were disallowed by the ld AO as under:- Expenditure on running

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

2,20,94,366 ( Rs. 3,17,32,734 - Rs. 96,38,368). 29. The CIT(A) allowed claim of the Assessee to the extent the Assessee produced challans evidencing payment of 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

SAMIR KUMAR NAYAK ,BALASORE vs. CIT(IT&TP), KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

TDS was reported in statement 26AS in the assessee’s name. In the return furnished, the assessee however did not include the said allowance in his total income on the plea that it was not income earned or accrued in India and therefore not forming part of the total income in terms of Section 5(2) read with Section