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) of the Act, and this ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9.2. We find that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Goenka Agencies vs CIT reported in (2003) 263 ITR 145 (Cal) wherein the head notes are reproduced as below:- "Business expenditure-Disallowance under s. 40A(3)-Exceptional and unavoidable

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) of the Act, and this ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9.2. We find that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Goenka Agencies vs CIT reported in (2003) 263 ITR 145 (Cal) wherein the head notes are reproduced as below:- "Business expenditure-Disallowance under s. 40A(3)-Exceptional and unavoidable

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

disallowance is called for by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” We note that it is not the case of the AO that the cash payments were not genuine and intended to evade taxes. Therefore the cash payments made by the assessee were out of business

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

disallowance is called for by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” We note that it is not the case of the AO that the cash payments were not genuine and intended to evade taxes. Therefore the cash payments made by the assessee were out of business

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

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]

3)(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

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 for purchase was made only by applying section 40A(3) wherever the payment were in excess of Rs. 20,000/. Therefore sundry creditors cannot be said to be bogus and no addition can be made as bogus creditors. It is further submitted that even if it is presumed that there were unconfirmed creditors, then whether the provision of section

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]

disallowance could be made under section 40A(3) - Held, yes [ Para 23J [In favour of the assessee]" ) 4.6.3. Another argument advanced by the ld AR was that section 40A(3) of the Act uses the word ‘any expenditure’ which only pertains to single invoice and if the single invoice is less than Rs 20,000/-, then the provisions of section

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 40A(3) disallowance of Rs. 49,43,544/-. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 13

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 Wakf which was created much prior to the commencement of this Act, to enjoy rent free accommodation and as such no addition on account of deemed income should have been

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, and this ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9.2. We find that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Goenka Agencies vs CIT reported in (2003) 263 ITR 145 (Cal) wherein the head notes are reproduced as below:- “Business expenditure-Disallowance under s. 40A(3)-Exceptional and unavoidable

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

disallowance and giving valid reasons for such computation. The crux of argument of AR is with reference to Section 14(2) which is as under: “The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method

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]

disallowance of rent upto Rs.2,16,000/- as against Rs. 11,82,000/- without appreciating the observation of the A.O. 5) That the appellant craves leave to add modify or alter any of the grounds of appeal and/ or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2 Padma Logistics & Khanij

SOMA RANI GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, added back Rs.1,63,78,648/- claimed as expense towards Carriage Inward and Rs.1,13,00,980/- claimed as expense towards Carriage Outward, to the income of the assessee. 3

SRI MALAY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance could be made under section 40A(3) – Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour of the assessee]” CIT vs Smt. Shelly Passi reported in (2013) 350 ITR 227 (P&H) In this case the court upheld the view of the tribunal in not applying section 40A(3) of the Act to the cash payments when ultimately, such amounts were deposited

ITO, WD-2(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. M/S KAJORA PACHAI & C. S. SHOP, BURDWAN

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-2(3), Durgapur -Vs- M/S Kajora Pachai & C.S. Shop [Pan: Aagfk 2341 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance was deleted by the ld CITA in first appeal. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Durgapur has erred on fact and law by holding that cash payment to M/s IFB Agro Industries Ltd., Panagarh is not a violation of Section 40A(3

SHRI PRABIR KUMAR MULLICK,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 Prabir Kumar Mullick V/S. Income Tax Officer, Searsol C.S.Shop, Ward-3(1), G.T. Road Shisubagan (Kalali Gali) (West), Asansol Ranigunj (Burdwan) [Pan No.Ajepm 7142 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance could be made under section 40A(3) – Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour of the assessee]” CIT vs Smt. Shelly Passi reported in (2013) 350 ITR 227 (P&H) In this case the court upheld the view of the tribunal in not applying section 40A(3) of the Act to the cash payments when ultimately, such amounts were deposited

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

3 items referred to para 4, 6 and 7 of your notice under reply. Enquiry in Reassessment Proceedings 2.(a). Dealing with the jurisdictional issue we further wish to state n behalf of our client above named and without prejudice to the above submissions that the notice proposes to disallow in entirely the total operational and incidental expenses against