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

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹10,81,150/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along

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

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹10,81,150/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on account of payment of disbursed prize monies. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 75 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said I.T.A. No. 277/KOL./2016

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)

131 of the Act confirming the receipt of monies in cash from the assessee and further stated that he Shri Manorajan Raha had persuaded the assessee to pay only in account payee cheques to get away from the rigours of section 40A(3) of the Act , but the assessee continued to make certain payments in violation of section 40A(3

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]

131 of the Act confirming the receipt of monies in cash from the assessee and further stated that he had persuaded the assessee to pay only in account payee cheques to get away from the rigours of section 40A(3) of the Act, but the assessee continued to make certain payments in violation of section 40A(3

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 was a technical disallowance for violation of specific provisions of Income Tax Act. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijaykumar P. Desai (Individual & HUF) (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held as under: “6. We find that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, MINAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. SHRI JUGAL KISHORE DAS, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2010-11 D.C.I.T., Circle-2, -Versus- Shri Jugal Kishore Das Midnapore Paschim Medinipur (Pan: Adxpd 2305 B) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri David Z.Chawngthu, Addl. Cit(Sr.Dr) For The Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2017. Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Relating To A.Y. 2010-11 On The Following Grounds : “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Was Not Justified In Deleting Addition Aggregating To Rs 86,55,000/-, Made U/S 40A(3) On Account Of Cash Payments Of Rs 45,80,000/- To M/S United Spirits & Rs 40,75,000/- To M/S Vtr Marketing, ; 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Xxxvi, Kolkata Was Not Justified In Deleting Addition Of Rs 86,55,000/- U/S 40A(3), Ignoring Assessee'S Own Statement Recorded On Oath U/S 131 On 15/03/2013, That Payments Exceeding Rs 20,000/- Were Made In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Read With Rule-6Dd ; 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -Xxxvi, Kolkata Was Not Justified In Deleting Addition Of Rs 86,55,000/- U/S 40A(3), Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Substantiate His Claim That Payments Were Made In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Read With Rule-6Dd Due To Commercial Expediency ;”

131 on 15/03/2013, that payments exceeding Rs 20,000/- were made in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) read with Rule-6DD ; 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -XXXVI, Kolkata was not justified in deleting addition of Rs 86,55,000/- u/s 40A(3), ignoring

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

disallowed, then effectively the ld AO would be taxing the entire sale proceeds as income of the assessee which would only result in an anomalous situation. He further argued that the law cannot be interpreted in such a manner as it would result in creating absurdity if section 40A(3) is invoked in a strict sense. The assessee

M/S. RAMNAGAR PACHAI & C.S. (S) SHOP vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

disallowed, then effectively the ld AO would be taxing the entire sale proceeds as income of the assessee which would only result in an anomalous situation. He further argued that the law cannot be interpreted in such a manner as it would result in creating absurdity if section 40A(3) is invoked in a strict sense. The assessee

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

disallowed, then effectively the ld AO would be taxing the entire sale proceeds as income of the assessee which would only result in an anomalous situation. He further argued that the law cannot be interpreted in such a manner as it would result in creating absurdity if section 40A(3) is invoked in a strict sense. The assessee

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was made as the no dividend was received, which violates Departmental Circular No. 5/2014 [F. No. 225/182/2013-ITA-II]. Further, fresh shares were purchased as apparent from Note 12 of balance sheet. (iv) The 'Exceptional Item' of Rs.1.84 crs at Note-24 of P&L account. As VRS payment as referred has already been allowed u/s.35DDA

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

disallowed. Under the income Tax Act, a non-resident in receipt of income from which tax has been deducted at source has the option of filing a return of income in respect of the relevant income. In such case, a non-resident could claim a refund of a part of the tax deducted at source on the ground that

M/S TIRAT PACHAI SHOP,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1(3), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

131/- under section 40A(3) for A.Y. 2008-09. 3. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3

RADHAKRISHNA AGRO PRODUCTS,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), BURDWAN. , BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 40A(3), not fall within the exception provided in rule 6DD of the Rules. Hence, disallowed and added to the total income reported by the assessee. 5.2. It is worth noting that Ld. AO had issued summons to the six parties to whom bearer cheques were issued for procurement of paddy from the farmers located in far flung village

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 20.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.4,47,9I0/-. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed that the assessee-company has given donation to Herbicure Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation, Calcutta. A survey action was carried out at the premises of the donee wherein

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

disallowance. 9. That the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax erred in charging interest of Rs.6,01,293 under section 234B and Rs.1,195 under section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing any specific order for such charging of interest in complete disregard of the judgment dated 6th January, 2012 passed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

3. Both parties reiterated their respective pleadings against and in support of the CIT(A) directions under challenge. We notice in this backdrop that the instant issue of section 14A r.w.r. 8D disallowance for the purpose of section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

3. Both parties reiterated their respective pleadings against and in support of the CIT(A) directions under challenge. We notice in this backdrop that the instant issue of section 14A r.w.r. 8D disallowance for the purpose of section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment