D.C.I.T CIR - 55,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SANTIBRATA SAHA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

bogus creditors even after the assessee failed to produce the list creditors during assessment as well as remand proceedings.” 3.2. The Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO. In response to this, the Learned AR argued that the comparison made by the Learned AO with regard to closing balance of sundry creditors of two different years

D.C.I.T WD - 9(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN LEASING & TRADING PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-9(3) -Versus- M/S. Indian Leasing & Trading Kolkata Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata (Pan:Aaacf3904D) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

bogus or excessive. It was argued that the learned AO had overlooked the fact that the books of accounts of the appellant were duly audited by a qualified Chartered Accountant both under the Companies Act, 1956 and also as per the provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. It was argued that in any case there

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

bogus. In all the transactions, the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness had not been proved by the assessee. The ld. CIT (A) admitted the additional evidence without getting the remand report from the AO. As per section 250 (4) of the Act, the ld. CIT (A) could make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, if he did not receive

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

bogus. In all the transactions, the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness had not been proved by the assessee. The ld. CIT (A) admitted the additional evidence without getting the remand report from the AO. As per section 250 (4) of the Act, the ld. CIT (A) could make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, if he did not receive

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

purchase & other expenditure shown and the sales & income declared by the assessee. d] It is submitted that in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 while completing the original assessment order, the ld AO had not made any disallowances of expenditure rather looking to nature of business activities and profit rate declared had been accepted and accordingly

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

purchase & other expenditure shown and the sales & income declared by the assessee. d] It is submitted that in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 while completing the original assessment order, the ld AO had not made any disallowances of expenditure rather looking to nature of business activities and profit rate declared had been accepted and accordingly

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

purchase & other expenditure shown and the sales & income declared by the assessee. d] It is submitted that in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 while completing the original assessment order, the ld AO had not made any disallowances of expenditure rather looking to nature of business activities and profit rate declared had been accepted and accordingly

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

purchase & other expenditure shown and the sales & income declared by the assessee. d] It is submitted that in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 while completing the original assessment order, the ld AO had not made any disallowances of expenditure rather looking to nature of business activities and profit rate declared had been accepted and accordingly

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

purchase & other expenditure shown and the sales & income declared by the assessee. d] It is submitted that in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 while completing the original assessment order, the ld AO had not made any disallowances of expenditure rather looking to nature of business activities and profit rate declared had been accepted and accordingly

ECONOMIC MEDICAL STORES ,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE - 1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.118/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Economic Medical Stores Vs. Jcit, Range-I, Hooghly 23/1, Panchanantala Street, P.O & P.S. Rishra, Dist: Hooghly, Pin- 712101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaafe8315Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

194H of the Act. The assessee’s reliance on various clarifications (supra) also are devoid of merit since these nowhere deal with TDS on commission payment required under Chapter XVII of the Act. We observe in these facts and circumstances that the learned lower authorities have rightly invoked the impugned disallowance in principle so far as assessee’s commission payments

PRASANTA KARMAKAR,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.258/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Prasanta Karmakar Vs. Jcit, Range-26, Kolkata R-26, Kol, Aykar Bhawan, 41, Bose Para Road, Barisha, Dakshin, Dhakuria, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 008. 700 068. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Agapk 0496 Q (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Monoj Dutta, Fca, S.K. Roy, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Kolkata, In Appeal No.359/Cit(A)-7/Range- 26/14-15, Dated 28.01.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.144/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 17.03.2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That The Ld. Cit(A) Totally Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.10,98,184/- U/S.40(A)(Ia)/194H Which Was Not The Issue In The Original Asst. Order Wherein The A.O. Made The Total Disallowance As Bogus Commission Payment & Rejected Books U/S.145(3) & Such Addition Has To Be Deleted Being Totally Injudicious & Out Of Context Especially When The Cit(A) Himself Has Admitted That Commission Payment Is Genuine & Is Required To Be Allowed. 2.That The Disallowance Of Rs.10,98,184/- Is Totally Bad & Uncalled For In View Of The Findings In The Asst. Order Dt. 20.01.2016 Of The Assessee U/S. 143(3) For The Asst. Year 2013-2014 & Hence Cannot Be Sustained. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Retailer'S Commission Is Determined & Communicated By The Principal Ttsl Through E-Mail Every Month

purchases, sales and stocks. In other words, he pockets the commission income earned through sellable stock by suppressing sales figures and making a bogus claim of having paid commission to the retailers to whom he has already given a discount of 7% to 8%. This way, the AO made the addition on account of bogus claim of commission payment

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. BURNPUR CEMENT LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-I, Lower Vs. Brunpur Cement Ltd., 141, Chelidanga, Asansol-4 Cement House, Saradapally, Ashok Nagar, Asansol, District-Burdwan- 713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca 1999 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar Cit Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Asansol, In Appeal No.296/Cit(A)/Asl/R-I/Asl/10-11 Dated 31.10.2011 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment Framed U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

purchase and sale of clinker and gross profit and net profit for earlier years. 14.12.2010 – Electricity vis a vis production details for two years were furnished along with explanation of gross profit rate. 2.16.1. From the above, it could be seen that the assessee had filed all the details called for by the ld AO on various occasions from time

ARABINDA KUNDU,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-49(2), KOLKATA, KARNATAKA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). In view of the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act which provides that where tax has not been deducted as required in law, the corresponding expenditure on which tax was not deducted will not be allowed as a deduction, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.2,41,530/- and added

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,JHARKHAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

bogus expenditure and not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business. So total commission of Rs.74,35,828.00 debited to profit & loss account is hereby disallowed and added to total income of the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of AO that the nature of services rendered