A.C.I.T(TDS) CIR - 57,KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

delay in these cases deserves to be condoned and proceeded to hear the appeals. 3. All the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. 4. The Assessee is a Third Party Administrator (TPA). An insurance company appoints TPA to settle claims and pay to policy holders. The TPA acts as an agent performing

M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

delay in these cases deserves to be condoned and proceeded to hear the appeals. 3. All the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. 4. The Assessee is a Third Party Administrator (TPA). An insurance company appoints TPA to settle claims and pay to policy holders. The TPA acts as an agent performing

M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-57(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

delay in these cases deserves to be condoned and proceeded to hear the appeals. 3. All the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. 4. The Assessee is a Third Party Administrator (TPA). An insurance company appoints TPA to settle claims and pay to policy holders. The TPA acts as an agent performing

KANOI TEA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

ITO, WD-1(4), TDS, NADIA & MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD vs. M/S THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

condone the impugned delay of three days’ filing in each of these cases. 3. We now advert merits involved in these cases. The Revenue’s identical sole substantive ground pleads that CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in reversing Assessing Officer’s action treating annual maintenance contracts “AMC” payments made to various payees

ITO, WD-1(4), TDS, NADIA & MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD vs. M/S THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

condone the impugned delay of three days’ filing in each of these cases. 3. We now advert merits involved in these cases. The Revenue’s identical sole substantive ground pleads that CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in reversing Assessing Officer’s action treating annual maintenance contracts “AMC” payments made to various payees

ITO, WD-1(4), TDS, NADIA & MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD vs. M/S THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

condone the impugned delay of three days’ filing in each of these cases. 3. We now advert merits involved in these cases. The Revenue’s identical sole substantive ground pleads that CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in reversing Assessing Officer’s action treating annual maintenance contracts “AMC” payments made to various payees

RAJIB BANERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 1,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and the assessee is engaged in supply of mechanical goods, mainly the electrical goods like transformer etc. During the assessment year under consideration the assessee derived his income from business, profession and income from other sources. He filed his return

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

194J of the Act in contravention of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia)(B) of the Act." 2 M/s.Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 Ground No.19 : "That the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds of appeal, if any, at or before the time of hearing and/or alter, modify, reframe any grounds of appeal at or before

ANITA SETH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

condone the delay and take up the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, Shri Miraj D.Shah, Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has pointed out that the issue is regarding the adjustment made by the CPC, Bengaluru while processing the return of income filed by the assessee. According to him, as per section 143(1)(a) of the Income

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as 6 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg. Ltd.., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Delay condoned. Leave granted. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as 6 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg. Ltd.., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would

M/S THE RAIGANJ CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ACIT, MALDA RANGE, MALDA, MALDA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

delay is, therefore, condoned and this appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merit. 3. Grounds No. 1, 4 & 5 raised by the assessee in this appeal are general, which do not call for any specific adjudication. I.T.A. No. 11/KOL./2016 Assessment year: 2011-2012 Page 2 of 5 4. The issue raised in Ground No. 2 relates

D.C.I.T CIR - 3(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 3. We first take the appeal of the revenue for the Assessment Year

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 3. We first take the appeal of the revenue for the Assessment Year

D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EKO DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. I.T.A. No. 159/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. 3 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company running a diagnostic centre. Income of Rs.2,55,37,237/- declared in e- return for Assessment Year 2013-14 filed on 29/09/2013. Case selected

SUBHAG MERCANTILE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WD-59(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2004-05

194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 30.05.2008 for assessment year 2004-05. ITA No.165/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2004-05 Subhag Mecantile (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO,TDSs Wd-59(3), Kol. Page 2 Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared

RISHIKESH HIRE PURCHASE AND LEASING CO PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2 I.T.A. No. 620/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rishikesh Hire Purchase and Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 54,55,050/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by AO u/s 40a(ia) of the Act on account