DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

TDS to the extent of Rs 65,187. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, the AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, the Assessing Officer erred in granting short credit of interest under section 244A

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

TDS to the extent of Rs 65,187. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, the AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, the Assessing Officer erred in granting short credit of interest under section 244A

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

TDS deduction comes into play only if the corresponding income is taxable in the recipients’ hands in India. The assessee’s payees / agents neither have any permanent establishment in India u/s 9(1)(i) of the Act nor they have any commission activity performed in India so as to be exigible to assessment in India. We therefore uphold

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 for AY 2018-19. Since the grounds of appeal are common and the facts are identical, we dispose of both these appeal by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 2. The grounds of appeal

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG) (P)LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 for AY 2018-19. Since the grounds of appeal are common and the facts are identical, we dispose of both these appeal by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 2. The grounds of appeal

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS obligations on the subject mentioned payments and the same has been accepted by the department. He also referred to the summary of emails from Pages 333 to 27 28 M/s Philips India Ltd. (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd) A.Yr.2013-14 378 and further emails which are enclosed in Exhibit II from pages 800 to 854 of Paper Book

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)

TDS obligations on the subject mentioned payments and the same has been accepted by the department. He also referred to the summary of emails from Pages 333 to 378 28 29 Philips India Ltd.. A.Yr.2012-13 and further emails which are enclosed in Exhibit II from pages 800 to 854 of Paper Book. He also referred

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

YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS provisions. The levy of\ninterest under Sections 234B and 234C is valid as it is mandatory for default in\nadvance tax payment. The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section\n271(1)(c) is justified due to the appellant's inability to substantiate the claimed\nexpenses. The appeal is dismissed in full.”\n06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:-- (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :-- "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:-- (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :-- "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S FIVES STEIN INDIA PROJECTS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

section 40A(2) of the Act and hence disallowance made by the Learned AO on this wrong understanding of facts is not appreciated. We find that the assessee’s case is also covered by the decision of this tribunal in the case of IFB Agro Industries Ltd vs CIT in ITA No. 3756 (Cal.) 92

SRI SUTANU MAHANTY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-53, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This ground is not allowed.” Being Aggrieved by the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 80 and submitted that books were not produced during remand proceeding

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS has to be deducted. But, the assessee failed to deduct the same and accordingly, AO invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, made disallowance of payments amounting to Rs.111,91,59,021/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee on all the issues. Aggrieved, now revenue

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS has to be deducted. But, the assessee failed to deduct the same and accordingly, AO invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, made disallowance of payments amounting to Rs.111,91,59,021/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee on all the issues. Aggrieved, now revenue

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

TDS has to be deducted. But, the assessee failed to deduct the same and accordingly, AO invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, made disallowance of payments amounting to Rs.111,91,59,021/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee on all the issues. Aggrieved, now revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS was not effected. The AO further 'observed that this liability had not crystallized as on 31.03.2011 and being contingent in nature was not an allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. 1 find the similar issue had been decided by the erstwhile jurisdictional CIT(A) in the appellant's own case for the AY 2009- 10 (supra) wherein

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

TDS Credit (Refer our detailed grounds of appeal on this issue) 10. Non grant of Foreign Tax Credit under section 91 of the Act (Refer our detailed grounds of appeal on this issue) 11. Erroneous Levy of Interest under section 234B of the Act (Refer our detailed grounds of appeal on this issue) 12. Erroneous Levy of Interest under section