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

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

depreciation claim stands reversed byhon'ble Madras high court in TCA No.55/2017 dated 14.03.2017. Their lordships have made it clear that such a deduction claim is allowable even if in case than fixed assets had been put to use in earlier assessment years. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s identical detailed reasoning extracted hereinabove in all these three assessment

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

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

depreciation claim stands reversed byhon'ble Madras high court in TCA No.55/2017 dated 14.03.2017. Their lordships have made it clear that such a deduction claim is allowable even if in case than fixed assets had been put to use in earlier assessment years. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s identical detailed reasoning extracted hereinabove in all these three assessment

ITO,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHAHI ROADWAYS(P)LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

194A of the Act. Hence no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted. Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 3. The next ground to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could be invoked in respect of lorry hire charges

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. SHRI PINTU BHATTACHARJEE, BURDWAN

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Acit, Circle-1, V/S. Shri Pintu Bhattacharjee Aayakar Bhavan, Court Memari Old Lic Math, G.T. Compound,Burdwan- Road, Memari, 713101 Burdwan-713146 [Pan No.Adepb 8283 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent S.M.S. Tauheed, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asamsol’S Order Dated 30.10.2014 In Case No.178/C.I.T.(A)/Asl/Acit/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3)/144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Identical Former Grievance Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts On The Deleting Disallowance / Additions Of ₹39,94,137/- Pertaining To Higher Depreciation Rate Claimed On Transmit Complete Mixer & Loaders & Also Granting Relief Of ₹4,73,249/- Regarding Lower Loader Machine; Respectively. We Notice That Cit(A) Discuss In On This Issue Reads As Under:- “6. Ground 2 Is Against Not Granting Depreciation At Higher Rates For Concrete Mixers & Payloaders, Vibrator Soil Compactor Etc. Is Settled In The Cases Reported In Vikram Ispat Vs. State Of Maharastra Air 2003 Bombay 498 P

194A. Before Assessing Officer the assessee relied on section 36(1)(iii) and stated that in view of this sub-section 40(a)(ia) will not apply. 10. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer mentioned that the purchase was on basis of a hire purchase agreement and assessee is liable to deduct tax at source on interest payment

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

194A of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO made disallowance of the following payments: “i) Payment to Shri Manoj Kumar sing amounting to Rs.1,58,237/-. ii) Payment to Excel India Pvt. Ltd. Amounting to Rs. 83,026.00, iii) Payment to DHI Donzas Lemuir Pvt. Ltd. Amounting to Rs.86

ITO, WD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ito(E), Wd-1(3), Kolkata Vs. The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen 6Th Floor, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata Iif Center, 335, Rajdanga Main – 700 071. Road, East Kolkata Township, P.O. Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt 6606 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

section required to be credited on accrual basis. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee ignoring the fact that TDS of Rs.4,94,685/- was claimed in the return of income while the income on such TDS was not credited in the I/E accounts as required

RISTA FISHERIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.792/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rista Fisheries & Infrastructure Vs. Ito, Ward-13(4), Kolkata. Ltd. 282, D.H. Road, West Bengal. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecr6032J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K. M. Roy, Fca Respondent By : Dr. A. K. Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Kolkata Dated 25.02.2019 Passed Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Advert To The Basic Relevant Facts. This Assessee’S Is A Company Developing Infrastructure As Well As Acting As A Commission Agent. It Filed Its Return On 15.02.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,202/-. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Framed Regular Assessment In Issue In Its Case Dated 15.11.2016 Determining Its Taxable Income At Rs.4,62,480/- After Making Various Disallowance/Additions.

194A of the Act and therefore, the impugned assessment is erroneous causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue as per section 263(1) Explanation 2(c) of the Act. This leaves the assessee’s aggrieved. 4. Mr. Roy vehemently submits during the course of hearing that the PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming his revisional jurisdiction

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction of tax at source but in a case, where there is a complete non- deduction of tax at source

SRI HARTAJ SEWA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

depreciation in the rate of Indian currency against the USD. In- ITA No.1011/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Sh Hartaj Sewa Singh vs. DCIT(IT) Cir-1(1) Kol. Page 7 fact when the invoice was received from SCPL the exchange rate was for 44.50 per USD whereas on the date of payment it has gone

TIRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,1,GIBSON LANE, SUITE 213, 2ND FLOOR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, GARIAHAT ROAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1965/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Vs Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata C/O: Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Apmps 8395 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Kumar Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21/08/2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, On The Following Grounds :- 1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,82,18,524/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Oil & Fuel Expenses. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 53,40,091/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Truck Running Expenses As Against 80,35,546/-Claimed By The Assessee. 3. (A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 3,71,736/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Finance Charges Paid For Acquisition Of Self Occupied House Property.

depreciation, however, the Assessing Officer without going into those evidences, made an adhoc disallowance of Rs.1,82,18,524/- out of the total oil and fuel expenses of Rs.4,80,67,257/- as claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account by bench marking the same on the basis of previous year’s percentage of oil and fuel