D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

B of the Act. 7.3 Section 195(1) of the Act deals with deduction of tax from payment to non- residents and foreign companies. Section 195(1) of the Act comes into play at a stage where the payer, who is enjoined to deduct the tax, either credit such income to the account of the payee or make payment thereof

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]

b) of the Act, any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution exceeding Rs 50,000/- in any previous year, would be treated as interested persons. Accordingly he also held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c ) (ii) of the Act and upheld the order of the Learned

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

B of the Act. 7.3 Section 195(1) of the Act deals with deduction of tax from payment to non-residents and foreign companies. Section 195(1) of the Act comes into play at a stage where the payer, who is enjoined to deduct the tax, either credit such income to the account of the payee or make payment thereof

KATHLEEN CONFECTIONERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. 13. As per the prescribed form 3CD, the following information is required to be given by the auditor: “20.(b

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

B of the Act. 7.3 Section 195(1) of the Act deals with deduction of tax from payment to non- residents and foreign companies. Section 195(1) of the Act comes into play at a stage where the payer, who is enjoined to deduct the tax, either credit such income to the account of the payee or make payment thereof

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

B of the Act. 7.3 Section 195(1) of the Act deals with deduction of tax from payment to non- residents and foreign companies. Section 195(1) of the Act comes into play at a stage where the payer, who is enjoined to deduct the tax, either credit such income to the account of the payee or make payment thereof

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source, from usance interest paid to the non-residents, under section 195(1). Page 13 of 20 I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Eximcorp India Private Limited. C. The assessee being responsible for paying to the non-resident usance

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source, from usance interest paid to the non-residents, under section 195(1). Page 13 of 20 I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Eximcorp India Private Limited. C. The assessee being responsible for paying to the non-resident usance

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

b) of section 43B. According to it, if any sum towards employer's contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees is actually paid

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHATOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

13. On examination of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with Explanation to Section 9(2) which was substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, we note that prior to the amendment in order to attract the rigors of Section 195 requiring tax deduction at source from ‘fees for technical services’, it was necessary

SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. ,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU/ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 58/5B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 [Pan: Aakcs3206R] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Acit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. R. Kothari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “For That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Alleged Late Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi Etc. To The Extent Of Rs.792872/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer In Summary Assessment.”

section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. 13. As per the prescribed form 3CD, the following information is required to be given by the auditor: I.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka

M/S PORTSIDE ESTATES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.1150/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08

13% of shareholding”. ii) The CIT(A) was of the view that the five holding companies of which one of the holding companies of the assessee are claimed to be listed while the provision requires that the immediate subsidiary company to be listed company. According to CIT(A), “section 2(18)(b)(B)(c) provides exception only for any company

SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU / I.T.O., CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. 13. As per the prescribed form 3CD, the following information is required to be given by the auditor: “20.(b

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

B. Where such Assessee is deemed not to be an assessee in default in terms of the first proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 201 of the Act, then, in such event, "it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income

FIRST CHOICE READY MIX,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 First Choice Ready Mix................................................................……Appellant R No.2A&B, 2Nd Floor, Anandpur Sarachi Tower, E M Byepass Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107. [Pan: Aadff9917A] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vigyaneshward Nath Datta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratap Kundu...............................................................................……Appellant Jogipara, Bankura, P.O & Dist-Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Amupk9918R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. K. Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023

section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. 13. As per the prescribed form 3CD, the following information is required to be given by the auditor: “20.(b

PRATAP KUNDU,BANKURA JOGIPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 First Choice Ready Mix................................................................……Appellant R No.2A&B, 2Nd Floor, Anandpur Sarachi Tower, E M Byepass Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107. [Pan: Aadff9917A] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vigyaneshward Nath Datta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratap Kundu...............................................................................……Appellant Jogipara, Bankura, P.O & Dist-Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Amupk9918R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. K. Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023

section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. 13. As per the prescribed form 3CD, the following information is required to be given by the auditor: “20.(b

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

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

disallowed the assessee’s additional depreciation claim @ 10% u/s 32(1)(iia) since it had put its corresponding fixed assets to use in earlier assessment year(s) than installation thereof in the relevant previous year only Mr. Shankar refers to this tribunal’s recent decision in Welspun Corporation vs. DCIT and vice versa ITA No.5370 & 5722/Mum/2015 dated 13.12.2019 accepting

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

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

disallowed the assessee’s additional depreciation claim @ 10% u/s 32(1)(iia) since it had put its corresponding fixed assets to use in earlier assessment year(s) than installation thereof in the relevant previous year only Mr. Shankar refers to this tribunal’s recent decision in Welspun Corporation vs. DCIT and vice versa ITA No.5370 & 5722/Mum/2015 dated 13.12.2019 accepting