M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 115P of the Act was also raised in the following grounds of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A): “1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the intimation served by the DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru on 25.05.2023 (and bearing the date 29.12.2021) is barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed. 2. For that

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

disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.12.2005. 6. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the action of the Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No. 852/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Assessment

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]

disallowing the donation paid of Rs. 18,30,000/- to another trust. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds :- “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate order passed was in violation of principals of natural justice hence is bad in law and be quashed. 02. For that

M/S MITRA GUHA BUILDERS (INDIA) CO.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-33(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA NO.1594/Kol/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and C

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited 323 ITR 397 (SC). 26. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue has raised ground no.2 before the Tribunal. 27. We have heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

3. In this Ground of Appeal the Assessee claimed deduction of interest on delayed deposit of Tax Deducted at Source. The Assessee had relied on various judgements rendered by Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal and Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal. The Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal had allowed such claim in the case of NarayaniIspat Alloys Ltd. and the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal

M/S INTER STATE OIL CARRIER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

disallowance of Rs.3,23,969/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 35D and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of transportation, lease financing and trading & investment I.T.A. Nos 1024 & 1025/KOL/2016 Assessment years:2005-2006 & 2010-2011 Page 2 of 11 in shares

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

3)(b), the term "fees for technical services" means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for services of a ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kol. Page 40 managerial, technical or consultancy nature, including the provision of services of technical or other personnel Further. the protocol to the DTAA provides that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SATISH SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.449/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2018-2019) Ito, Ward-32(1), Kolkata Vs Satish Singh, 5B/H/6, Shibtala Lane, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Dswps 6446 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit, Sr.Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.01.2025For The Assessment Year2018-2019. 2. The Issue Raised In The Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Admitting The Additional Evidence Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessing Officer As Per Provisions Of Rule 46A Of It Rules, 1962 & Second Issue Is Against The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,75,17,500/- As Made By The Ao U/S.40A(3) Of The Act In Respect Of Commission & Salary Paid By The Assessee During The Year. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 16,36,550/-On 11/06/2019, The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 25.10.2019. Subsequently, Return Of The Assessee

3) of the LT Act, 1961 on 08/04/2021 at an assessed income of Rs.2,92.65,172- after disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 93,07,500/- paid as commission and Rs. 1,82,10,000/-paid as salaries totalling to Rs. 2,75,17,500/-. During the financial year under consideration, the assessee was a commission agent for recovery collection

THE BANK OF TOKYO- MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKALTA vs. ACIT, SPL. RANGE-3, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.449/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2018-2019) Ito, Ward-32(1), Kolkata Vs Satish Singh, 5B/H/6, Shibtala Lane, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Dswps 6446 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit, Sr.Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.01.2025For The Assessment Year2018-2019. 2. The Issue Raised In The Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Admitting The Additional Evidence Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessing Officer As Per Provisions Of Rule 46A Of It Rules, 1962 & Second Issue Is Against The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,75,17,500/- As Made By The Ao U/S.40A(3) Of The Act In Respect Of Commission & Salary Paid By The Assessee During The Year. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 16,36,550/-On 11/06/2019, The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 25.10.2019. Subsequently, Return Of The Assessee

3) of the LT Act, 1961 on 08/04/2021 at an assessed income of Rs.2,92.65,172- after disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 93,07,500/- paid as commission and Rs. 1,82,10,000/-paid as salaries totalling to Rs. 2,75,17,500/-. During the financial year under consideration, the assessee was a commission agent for recovery collection

M/S. MANAKSIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(3) (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 172. Similarly, in view of the decision in ACIT -vs- Minpro Industries, the disallowance made by the AO for non-deduction of TOS u/s.194C cannot be accepted. Further it is seen that EMU Shipping Lines and Meridian Cargo Line are authorized agents of NRSCs and not forwarders. In the case of the Appellant it has demonstrated with the help

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 172. Similarly, in view of the decision in ACIT -vs- Minpro Industries, the disallowance made by the AO for non-deduction of TOS u/s.194C cannot be accepted. Further it is seen that EMU Shipping Lines and Meridian Cargo Line are authorized agents of NRSCs and not forwarders. In the case of the Appellant it has demonstrated with the help

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount suo-moto 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited disallowed by the assessee. T . The disallowance should, in any case

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

3,46,670 + 6,03,34,549 + 34,29,673+ = Rs.66,41,09,892/- Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the disallowance of ₹ 6,41,09,892/- under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. 10. Before us Ld. AR submitted that the finding

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

disallowed in cases to which these provisions of the section apply. Sub-section (7) of section 40A was inserted by the Finance Act, 1975 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1973. It is necessary to appreciate the purpose and object intended to be achieved by this sub-section in order to arrive at the true meaning of the provision

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 172. The disallowances of Rs.83,026/- and Rs.86,934/- are confirmed. Ground no. 3 is dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee is in second

D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09

172 of the Act which provides non obstante clause which has an overriding effect over the other provision of the Act. Therefore, the TDS was not deducted. However, the AO perused one TDS certificate issued under ITA No.1011/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 DCIT Cir-4, Kol. v. M/s Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. Page 3 section 197 of the Act which states

ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

172/- 5. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows. In the assessee’s case, a survey was conducted on 08.01.2013 in the business premises of the assessee. In the course of survey,the computerized accounts for the assessment year 2010-11 was found. On examination of computerized accounts and comparing with e-filed

M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

172/- 5. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows. In the assessee’s case, a survey was conducted on 08.01.2013 in the business premises of the assessee. In the course of survey,the computerized accounts for the assessment year 2010-11 was found. On examination of computerized accounts and comparing with e-filed