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 on the basis of payments made in contravention of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO was of the view that the payment has been made to the non-producers of the raw hide and skins and therefore the same was not allowable. In our considered view the AO has not brought anything on record

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]

191 ITR 667 (SC) “Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides that expenditure in excess of Rs.2,500 (Rs. 10,000 after the 1987 amendment) would be allowed to be deducted only if made by a crossed cheque or crossed bank draft (except in specified cases) is not arbitrary and does not amount to a restriction

ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, KOLKATA vs. SRI DEEPAK GUPTA, RANIGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

191 disallowed on account of transporting charges to an amount of Rs.48,09,914/- pertaining to these four transporters, likewise an amount of Rs.54,18,875.69 was also disallowed to the transactions made with one Mr.Rajendra Gupta for not submitting 15J and for not complying notices u/s133(6) and added the both to the total income of the assessee

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

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 the expenses for the payment of arrear of wages in cash by invoking the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. Though the ld. AR submitted that the payment was made under unavoidable circumstances and such situation is covered for the payment in cash in the exception provided in rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules 1962. However

I.T.O WD - 2(3),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S PREMIER TRADERS SELF HELP GROUP (H/O KISHORE MONDAL), BURDWAN

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

disallow such purchase as identified as bogus. Recourse to section 40A(3) is not an available option in such a situation.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us. 11. Before us both the parties relied on the orders of Authorities Below as favourable to them. 12. We have heard the rival contentions

A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BISWANATH PASSARI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2863/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Acit Circle 34 Kolkata..............................…………………………................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Mr. Biswanath Passari....................……………………………………..........................Respondent 16, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Afypp 9144 H] Appearances By: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 21, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 06, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) - Xx, Dated 05.09.2013 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 39,17,925/- Made By The A.O. Under Section 14A Of The Act Which Is Restricted By The Ld. Cit(A) To Rs. 7,20,267/-.

191/- + Rs. 2,88,734/- = Rs. 39,17,925/-“ Accordingly, in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 29.12.2009, a disallowance

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

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 ]

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was warranted in respect of the aforesaid three payments for which the assessee had obtained NIL certificates u/s 195 of the Act from the ADIT(IT)-2(1), Kolkata. However the mere fact that the assessee obtained certificates u/s 195 of the Act in relation to three specific payments by itself did not grant

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross

disallowance of Rs.3,46,20,191/- suo moto offered suo moto offered by the assessee was in gross violation of the provisions of Section

M/S SUPER ENTERPRISE,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-2(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result the addition as confirmed by the Id

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

191 ITR 667 (SC) " 3.3.4 Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides that expenditure in excess of Rs. 2,500 (Rs. 10,000 after the 1987 amendment) would be allowed to be deducted only if made by a crossed cheque or crossed bank draft (except in specified cases) is not arbitrary and does not amount

MARTIN BURN LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 4(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

191 of the Act the person making the payment can be deemed to be an assessee in default within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 201 only where the deductee/payee has also failed to pay such tax directly. This issue has been considered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagran Prakashan Ltd. V. DCIT

M/S SARBARI SUPLIMENTARY C. S. SHOP,PURULIA vs. ITO, WD-3(4), KOLKATA, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 858 & 860/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Sarbari Supplimentary C.S. Shop..............................………………………...........Appellant At. Sarbari, P.O. Neturia, Purulia – 723 121 [Pan : Abjfs 8433 M] Income Tax Officer……………………………………………….............................................Respondent Ward 3(4), Asansol, Sahana Apartment, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – 713 304 Appearances By: Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 23.03.2016 For A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Since Some Of The Issues Involved Therein Are Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First We Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2010-11 Being Ita No. 858/Kol/2016. Ground No 1 Raised In This Appeal Is General In Nature Which Does Not Call For Any Specific Adjudication.

disallowance under section 40(a)(3) is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own case for 3 I.T.A. No. 858 & 860/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Sarbari Supplimentary C.S. Shop A.Y. 2008-09 vide its order dated September 16, 2016 passed in ITA No. 2858/Kol/2013 wherein

M/S SARBARI SUPLIMENTARY C. S. SHOP,PURULIA vs. ITO, WD-3(4), KOLKATA, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 858 & 860/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Sarbari Supplimentary C.S. Shop..............................………………………...........Appellant At. Sarbari, P.O. Neturia, Purulia – 723 121 [Pan : Abjfs 8433 M] Income Tax Officer……………………………………………….............................................Respondent Ward 3(4), Asansol, Sahana Apartment, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – 713 304 Appearances By: Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 23.03.2016 For A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Since Some Of The Issues Involved Therein Are Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First We Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2010-11 Being Ita No. 858/Kol/2016. Ground No 1 Raised In This Appeal Is General In Nature Which Does Not Call For Any Specific Adjudication.

disallowance under section 40(a)(3) is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own case for 3 I.T.A. No. 858 & 860/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Sarbari Supplimentary C.S. Shop A.Y. 2008-09 vide its order dated September 16, 2016 passed in ITA No. 2858/Kol/2013 wherein

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)

191 ITR 667 (SC) "Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides that expenditure in excess of Rs.2,500 (Rs.10,000 after the 1987 amendment) would be allowed to be deducted only if made by a crossed cheque or crossed bank draft (except in specified cases) is not arbitrary and does not amount

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

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