M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

197/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds are,\ntherefore, partly allowed.\n13. Ld. AR filed his written submission in regard to the above grounds\nwhich are extracted as under :-\n11. Issues No. 2 & 3 in respect of alleged transaction of purchase of\ncoal with Anup Majhee and addition made thereto for different\n assessment years as follows:-\n Assessment

M/S. ANUBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA - 5, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

section 197 certificate) flows from incorrect understanding of the elementary facts i.e. certificates u/s 197 is not issued to the deductor (assessee in this case). So, it is noted that Ld PCIT has misdirected himself by misconstruing the reply of AO (TDS) on this issue and erroneously thus found that the AO erred in allowing expenditure claimed to have been

M/S ANUBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

section 197 certificate) flows from incorrect understanding of the elementary facts i.e. certificates u/s 197 is not issued to the deductor (assessee in this case). So, it is noted that Ld PCIT has misdirected himself by misconstruing the reply of AO (TDS) on this issue and erroneously thus found that the AO erred in allowing expenditure claimed to have been

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

ACIT, CIR-43 , KOLKATA vs. M/S SHYAMLAL IRON & STEEL CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section. It is the duty of the AO to pin point the defect and bring it out clearly and explicitly in the Assessment Order by marshalling the pertinent facts. In the instant case, the appellant is an individual whose accounts are statutorily audited and there are not adverse observations in this regard. No specific defects have been noticed

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)

197 of the Act. Learned authorized representative’s case accordingly is that since the impugned TDS deduction required involves a very miniscule percentage, both the learned lower authorities have erred in invoking the impugned disallowance on the entire sales commission of Rs.33,89,205/-. 4. The Revenue strongly supports both the lower authorities’ action in making impugned disallowance

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

197 (Del)], "it involves three ingredients, namely, the proof regarding the identity of the share applicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial

ITO, WARD - 56(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PKS HOLDINGS, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1677/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-56(2) -Vs.- M/S. Pks .Holdings Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaifp7778G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Jcit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Updhay, Ar

bogus or excessive. Hence, the addition of Rs.66,00,000 is deleted.” 22. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned DR reiterated stand of the AO as contained in the order of assessment. The learned AR relied on the order of the CIT(A). We have considered the rival submissions. The law is well settled that any payment