KRISHNA PRASAD POTNURI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Prasad Potnuri...............................................................…………………………………….…..Appellant (Prop. Calcutta South Transport Co.) 20, Phears Lance Bowbazar Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Afqpp 3888 Q] Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata....................................................…………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Das, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

11 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Prasad Potnuri in light of Rule 6DD as clarified by circular of the CBDT that whether the failure on the part of the assessee in adhering to requirement of provisions of section 40A(3) has any such nexus which defeats the object of provision so as to invite such a consequence. This is particularly

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said

S. N. CONSTRUCTION,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40A(3) refers to "the nature and extent of banking facility, consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors" which 11 S.N. Construction A.Yrs.2011-12 means that the object of the legislature is not to make disallowance

ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. S. N. CONSTRUCTION, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40A(3) refers to "the nature and extent of banking facility, consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors" which 11 S.N. Construction A.Yrs.2011-12 means that the object of the legislature is not to make disallowance

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon'ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia (supra

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon'ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia (supra

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow the said sum of Rs.551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the said Assessment Order, according to you, was allegedly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. From this fact we find that the parties from whom the raw hide and skin purchased were accepted as producers. No such issue was raised by the AO in the assessment. 8. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case and relied on the various case laws cited above

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

11,200/- as deemed income on the alleged ground that provisions for rent free accommodation for the mutwallis is it by the provisions of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(3) of the Act without considering that the mutwallis were authorized under the mandatory rule framed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in respect of the assessee

HARIDAS SOM,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 22(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy., Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 14/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 Haridas Som V/S. I.T.O. Ward 22(3), Kolkata Pan: Ajhps8867K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10 11 A.Y 2013-14 Haridas Som 40A(3) for Rs.78,45,580/- and disallowed @20% thereon Rs.15,69,116/-. It is also

M/S EXCEL ENGINEERS,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 51,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

disallowed, but section 40A(3) of the Act is silent regarding the cash payments made with respect to each bill in a day which are below Rs 20,000/-. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the decision of the Cochin Tribunal in the case of Raja & Co vs DCIT in ITA No. 534/Coch/2011 dated 22.3.2013. He also

RANJAN DEBNATH ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 9, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) were of the opinion that such direct payment into the bank account of the seller is not covered by the exceptions specified in Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 - HELD THAT:- It is a relevant consideration for the assessing authority under the Income-tax Act that

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

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

11 or section 12 apply". Under the provisions of section 14A no 'deduction is to be allowed in respect of' expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of total income under this Act. Since the issue of expenditure related to dividend income, falling under section 10 it is clear that the two provisions

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MARUTI FREIGHT MOVERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 482/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10

section 40A(3) of the Act is to check evasion of tax and the flow of unaccounted money. But in cases where the authorities are satisfied about the genuineness of the transaction and the identity of the payee, 11 I.T.A. No. 482/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/s. Maruti Freight Movers Ltd. there would be no occasion to disallow

MR. NIRMAL KUMAR DAS,MIDNAPORE vs. ACIT, CIR-HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Mr. Nirmal Kumar Das V/S. Acit, Circle-Haldia, W/H/A17, Durgachak Basudevpur, P.O. Housing Estate, P.O. Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Durgachak, Hldia, Purba Purba Medinipur, Pin – Medinipur, Pin. 721602 721602 [Pan No.Acupd 7343 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed. In that case the provision of section 40A(3) will become redundant. Therefore, unless there are unavoidable circumstances for payment in cash, that payment will be hit by the provision of section 40A(3). The finding of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal was that there were no unavoidable circumstances for payment

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

3,10,71,000 Average thereof 1,55,35,500 ½% thereof 77,678 Hence I limit the disallowance to Rs.77,678 and the balance amount of disallowance is not sustained.” 33. Having heard both the parties on this issue, we do not subscribe to the reason given by the Ld. CIT(A) that since the assessee had strategic investment

LAKSHMI TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (E) - II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

disallowed a sum of Rs.14,050/-. 3. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer completely misconceived the facts of the case. 4. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a more than 25 year old public charitable trust and has been all along allowed exemption under section 11

ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT CHANDANNAGAR EDUCATINAL SOCITY.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T. (OSD), CIR- 2,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

11 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Act and is also registered u/s 12A of the Act with effect from 1.4.2003. Registration u/s 12AA of the Act was also granted on the application