STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 4, DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

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

section 201(1A) for the said four years on the short-fall of TDS payment aggregating to Rs.7,21,85,256/- and after adjusting the overall excess payment of TDS amounting to Rs.2,96

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 4, DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

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

section 201(1A) for the said four years on the short-fall of TDS payment aggregating to Rs.7,21,85,256/- and after adjusting the overall excess payment of TDS amounting to Rs.2,96

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 4, DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

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

section 201(1A) for the said four years on the short-fall of TDS payment aggregating to Rs.7,21,85,256/- and after adjusting the overall excess payment of TDS amounting to Rs.2,96

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

TDS u/s. 194C of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.5: “5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.31,96

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

M/S MCC PTA INDIA CORPN. PVT. LTD.,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-59, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

TDS is to be deducted u/s. 194C or 194I for landing the aircrafts and parking thereof. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that when the wheels of an aircraft coming into airport and touched the surface of the airfield and parking the aircraft in the airport is use of land and attracts the provisions of section 194I

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWAJIT GUHA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

section 194C of the Act were made applicable to the individual assessee w.e.f. 1.6.2007 and it is admitted position that the matter relates to the assessment year 2006-07. Therefore in our considered view the assessee in the instant case was not liable to deduct TDS and accordingly there is no default for non-deduction of ITA No.355-56/Kol/2014 A.Ys

TEESTA VALLEY EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri, S.S. Godaraassessment Year :2013-14 Teesta Valley Exports Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(2) Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th 3, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001. Floor, P-7, [Pan No Aaact 9980 D] Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 18-07-2018

TDS thereupon under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) upholds the Assessing Officer’s action as follows: “Under the Accounting head 'Other Misc. Expenses' there were "Warehousing charges" aggregating to Rs.11,96

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

SITANGSHU DAS,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 26(1),, KOLKATA

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

TDS Under Section\n40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5) Drawings Disallowed:-of Rs. 1,05,580/-\nThat on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing\nofficer/appellate authority disallowed the drawings of Rs. 1,05,580/-\n(average drawings of AY: 2014-15 and 2015-16 being Rs. 1,50,000/- Less

VISHAL PACHISIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-44(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

96,700/- was not deposited in the Government treasury and therefore, the same was not reflected in Form 26AS. When the assessee filed the return of income after claiming the credit for TDS ,the same was denied by the AO, CPC in the order/intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 26.06.2018 thereby raising a demand

ACIT, CIRCLE-31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off as above

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am ] I.T.A No. 1848/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-31, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv [Pan: Aabar 5042 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 115/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1848/Kol/2017) Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv -Vs- Acit, Circle-31, Kolkata [Pan: Aabar 5042 H] (Respondent (Appellant)

TDS of Rs. 12,96,167/- deducted from the payment of mobilization advance by M/s Moser Baer Construction Pvt. Ltd. Admittedly, the mobilization advance was not offered to tax during the impugned assessment year. The Assessing officer held that as per provision of Section

BITUSH AND RAJIB CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,NADIA vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 204/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Bitush & Rajib Construction Private Limited,…………………………………………………Appellant Bagula Asram, Para Bagula, Bagula S.O., Nadia-741502, West Bengal [Pan:Aaccb8461D] -Vs.- Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,……………………………………….....Respondent Vadodara Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate & Shri Aryan Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R

section 143(1) at an income of Rs. 6,12,84,600/- by raising a demand of Rs.80,55,710/-. While processing the return of income, it was seen that the assesese had claimed TDS credit of Rs.1,66,13,072/-. CPC did not allow the TDS credit for Rs.69,96

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

TDS on the payment made by GRSE (i.e. the payer) but did not include the full amount of receipt from GRSE. The treatment given by the assessee in its accounts as well as in computation of its total income was contrary to the provisions of Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount

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

TDS on the payment made by GRSE (i.e. the payer) but did not include the full amount of receipt from GRSE. The treatment given by the assessee in its accounts as well as in computation of its total income was contrary to the provisions of Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount

I.T.O WD - 7(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S WINSOME BREWERIES LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

TDS) (2006) 281 ITR 99 (Bom), wherein it is held that supply of printed materials constitutes sale under the sale of Goods Act; and section 194C of the Act is not applicable. In that case it 5 Winsome Breweries Ltd. AY 2009-10 was held that supply of printed packaging labels merely because the printing was done as per requirement/specifications

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

96,16,994/-. In the said return, deductions of Rs.3,68,38,770/- and Rs.5,04,44,366/- were claimed by the assessee under sections 80IA and 80IB of the Act respectively. During the course of assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee for the said deductions was examined by the Assessing Officer and on such examination, he found that

TEESTA VALLEY EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

TDS thereupon under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) upholds the Assessing Officer’s action as follows: “Under the Accounting head 'Other Misc. Expenses' there were "Warehousing charges" aggregating to Rs.11,96