M/S AB (WINES) STORES,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

40A(3) of the Act in the sum of Rs 1,44,52,154/- had caused greater prejudice to the assessee in the assessment. Moreover, the said assessment is challenged before the ld CITA and the same is pending. While this is so, we are afraid whether the same issue could be the subject matter of revision proceedings

DHRUB NARAYAN BHADANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-39, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 28/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dhrub Narayan Bhadani..............................………………………………………...Appellant C/O. B.S. Sahay & Co., Room No. 431, Centre Point, 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Akdpb3207D] A.C.I.T., Cir 39, Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent 3, Govt. Place, Kolkata - 700001 Appearances By: Shri R.S. Sahay, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri D.Z. Chowngthu, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 08, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 11, Kolkata Dated 16.10.2015. 2. Ground No 1 Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Reads As Under: “The Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,05,130/- Being 50% Of Total Purchases On Estimate Made By The Ld. A.O. & Has Also Been Unjustified In Further Enhancing The Same By Rs. 4,05,130/- By Erroneously Holding The Same To Be Violative Of Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Without Appreciating The Fact That Section 40A(3) Was Not Applicable. The Addition Is Based On Surmises & Conjectures & Totally Against Facts Of The Case Itself As There Has Been No Single Instance Of Payment Exceeding 20,000/- To Any Party On Any Daty.”

Section 40A(3) are applicable even in the case where aggregate of payments made in cash exceeds the moneytary limit, we find that same is not supported by the relevant provisions of the Act. Even the learned DR has not been able to raise any contention to support this view taken by the Ld. CIT (A). A perusal

EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

40A(9) The record of the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act was examined by the ld. Principal CIT, Kolkata-4, Kolkata. On such examination, he was of the view that there were following errors in the said assessment, which were prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue

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]

depreciation of the said car. Considering these facts and ratio laid down, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. 6 I.T.A. No.312/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mega Engineers & Builders 10. Issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the confirmation of addition

PIJUSH KUMAR SADHUKHAN,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD 2(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am ] I.T.A No. 1430/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Pijush Kumar Sadhukhan -Vs- Ito, Ward-2(3), Hooghly [Pan: Asfps 7425 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 40A(3) in this case. Thus, in my considered opinion, the disallowance made u/s 40A(3), is not based on any evidence and hence, the same is liable to be deleted. Disallowance cannot be made on presumption and surmises. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed and the addition of Rs. 11,72,593/- is deleted. 5. Coming

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

Depreciation etc (Note 23) and Administrative & Selling & Distribution expenses (Note 24) which aggregates to ₹2,06,51,871/-. As such, the disallowance of indirect expenses aggregating to ₹2,06,51,871/- as per Note 21 to 24 is not sustainable being unfounded. As regards the application of the provisions of section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961 I find that

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

Depreciation etc (Note 23) and Administrative & Selling & Distribution expenses (Note 24) which aggregates to ₹2,06,51,871/-. As such, the disallowance of indirect expenses aggregating to ₹2,06,51,871/- as per Note 21 to 24 is not sustainable being unfounded. As regards the application of the provisions of section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961 I find that

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

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

40A(3) to be no more applicable after altogether rejection of books and confirms section 68 addition of cash deposits of ₹8.25 lac as follows:- (i) Conclusion In this case, in the original Profit & Loss account two receipts have been shown, relating to the receipt of Rs. 1,33,80,987/- as contractual receipt against which there is no dispute

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

40A(3) to be no more applicable after altogether rejection of books and confirms section 68 addition of cash deposits of ₹8.25 lac as follows:- (i) Conclusion In this case, in the original Profit & Loss account two receipts have been shown, relating to the receipt of Rs. 1,33,80,987/- as contractual receipt against which there is no dispute

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

3. High ratio of refund to TDS 4. Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c 5. Large any other deduction claimed in such BP creating a loss without any income in Profit & Loss a/c 6. Depreciation claimed at higher rates/Higher additional depreciation claimed 7. Large value sale of consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

depreciation or capital expenditure on scientific research, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 shall apply in relation to speculation business as they apply in relation to any other business. (4) No loss shall be carried forward under this section for more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed

JAKS PLAST PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2013-14 Jaks Plast Products Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata 41, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata- Vs. 700020. Pan: Aaacj 6432 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.02.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

depreciation @30%. However, ground no. 2 & 3 are allowed. 5. The issue raised in ground no. 4 is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 1,37,247/- by ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO u/s 40(A)(3) of the Act. 3 Jaks Plast Products Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 6. The facts in brief are that

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

section 32 of the Act. However, the Learned AO sought to disallow the depreciation of Rs. 6,09,570/-. Before the Learned CITA, the assessee filed the provisional registration certificates in march 2007 itself and argued that the vehicles were effectively put to use by march 2007 itself. The Learned CITA held that the assessee is a transporter with annual

M/S. BANIK METAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

depreciation chart. Once the items are capitalized and expenditure is made on capital goods, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am

40A (9), for A.Y. 2003­04 Rs. 5,47,224/­ (ii).Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of provision for tax at Rs.7,50,000/­. This ground is raised by Revenue in A.Y.2002­03. (iii). Ground Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9 raised by the Revenue are interlinked and common. These grounds relate to computation

ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GKW LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97

40A(3) of the Income Tax Act., 1961. 3.2. We have heard the rival submissions. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) deleting the double disallowance made by the ld AO. Hence the Ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 4. The next issue to be decided in this appeal

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1309/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maa Amba Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aaecm 6507 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40A(2) of the Act. There is no evidence to prove that the impugned transaction of payment of commission was prompted by consideration of tax avoidance. On the contrary, the evidences suggest that the payee had suffered taxes on the said commission income at maximum marginal rate and had also derived commission income of Rs 16.12 crores which admittedly

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 21. Next issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO by sustaining the disallowance of ₹5,69,248/- paid to LIC on account

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 21. Next issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO by sustaining the disallowance of ₹5,69,248/- paid to LIC on account