SHRI KISHAN SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2265/Kol/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups4979 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Kol/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Vs. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups 4979 C (Revenue) .. (Assessee) Assesseeby : Shri S.D Varma, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Cross-Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Are Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, Kolkata In Appeal No.238/Cit(A)- Xxx/Cir-45/2013-14, Dated 29.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed

section 143(3)/263/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 31.01.2014. 2. Since these two cross-appeals relate to same assessee, same Assessment Year, identical issues involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3)(v) of the Act excluding the Co- operative Banks from the definition of "Co- operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under Section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3)(v) of the Act excluding the Co- operative Banks from the definition of "Co- operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under Section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAMPION COMMERCIAL CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Champion P-7, Chowringhee Commercial Co. Ltd., Square, 3Rd Floor, P-15, Cit Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-73 [Pan No.Aabcc 2373 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “I. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,50,938/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Overrule The Judicial Pronouncement Of Cit Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited (1951) (191) Itr (Sc) Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.13,91,404/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The It Act, 1961. Iii. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.20,25,329/- On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The

iv. That on the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.58,121/- on wrong appreciation of facts ignoring the provision of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) in the case of employees contribution and overrule the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEV. CORPN. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.213/Kol/2012 of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

194A of the Act. Consequently there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. Consequently no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We therefore direct the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee

WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.213/Kol/2012 of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

194A of the Act. Consequently there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. Consequently no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We therefore direct the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee

WEST BENGAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE I.T.O, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.213/Kol/2012 of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

194A of the Act. Consequently there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. Consequently no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We therefore direct the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee

M/S THE RIGHT ADDRESS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,(TDS) WARD-59(4) (TDS),KOLKATA KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 201 (lA) for the said years and the assessee had accepted the said finding. " In the case of Thomas Muthoot vs. DCIT (2012) 34 CCH 0170 (copy enclosed at Page 1-12 of the Paper Book), the Cochin Tribunal discussed the case of the assessee in detail. In this case, the assessee failed to deduct the TDS on payments

GANAPATI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 485/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Ganapati Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.,…Appellant 6B, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aadcg2354D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-6(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kadel, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

capital gain/ loss on sale of property has been correctly shown in the return of income. In response to notices issued under section 142(1) various compliances were made by the Appellant Company online. It was also submitted before the Assessing Officer that Loan to Awani Projects Infrastructure Ltd was given in Financial Year- 2010-11 and loan

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

iv) Manugraph India Ltd. [TS 324-ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] v) Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITS-185- ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] vi) Apollo Health Street Ltd. vs. DCIT [TS-184- ITAT 2014 (HYD)-TP] Therefore, based on the above mentioned precedents, we note that the provision of corporate guarantee is not an international transaction. Hence, respectfully following

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

iv) Manugraph India Ltd. [TS 324-ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] v) Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITS-185- ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] vi) Apollo Health Street Ltd. vs. DCIT [TS-184- ITAT 2014 (HYD)-TP] Therefore, based on the above mentioned precedents, we note that the provision of corporate guarantee is not an international transaction. Hence, respectfully following

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

iv) Manugraph India Ltd. [TS 324-ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] v) Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITS-185- ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] vi) Apollo Health Street Ltd. vs. DCIT [TS-184- ITAT 2014 (HYD)-TP] Therefore, based on the above mentioned precedents, we note that the provision of corporate guarantee is not an international transaction. Hence, respectfully following