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

Section 194(C) and disallowed of Rs. 87,388/- on account of Studio Hire Charges and as discussed above, the CIT-A dismissed

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for the alleged failure of deduction of tax at source. A similar fact situation was involved in the case of Temasec Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Limited (supra), wherein Mumbai Bench of ITAT held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under section 194

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

194-I of the Act, for which the assessee has not deducted any TDS. The disallowance made by invoking the provisions of section

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

194 C as substituted by the Finance Act 2 of 2009 w.e.f. 1/10/2009 has now not made any distinction between a payment to a contractor or sub-contractor and all payments for carrying out any work in pursuance of contract are covered within the fold o f section 194C (1) of the Act. Further Explanation (iii) also provides that

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

disallow judiciously as per section 14A of the I. T. Act,\n1961. In this regard the reference may be drawn from the decision of\nBombay High Court also in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs.\nDCIT, Range-10(2), Mumbai [2010] 194

KRISHNA PRASAD POTNURI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Prasad Potnuri...............................................................…………………………………….…..Appellant (Prop. Calcutta South Transport Co.) 20, Phears Lance Bowbazar Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Afqpp 3888 Q] Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata....................................................…………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Das, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

disallow of deduction of such payments/expenses which were not through bank either by crossed cheques or by demand draft or by pay order. It was further held by the Hon'ble High Court that: "......Apparently, this provision was directly related to curb the evasion of tax and inculcating the banking habits. Therefore, the consequences, which were to befall on account

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

disallow judiciously as per section 14A of the I. T. Act,\n1961. In this regard the reference may be drawn from the decision of\nBombay High Court also in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs.\nDCIT, Range-10(2), Mumbai [2010] 194

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

disallow judiciously as per section 14A of the I. T. Act,\n1961. In this regard the reference may be drawn from the decision of\nBombay High Court also in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs.\nDCIT, Range-10(2), Mumbai [2010] 194

SHRI DINESH KUMAR GHOSH ,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 38, , MIDNAPORE

In the result, this ground and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 2015/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Kumar Ghosh.......………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant Garhbeta-Iii,Karamsole P.O. Kiaboni P.S. Garhbeta Paschim Medinipur – 721 253 [Pan : Arkpg 5318 G] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-38, Midnapore…….........…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 3Rd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 26Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/06/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is In The Business Of Trading In Wood & Timber. He Filed His Return Of Income On 29/10/2013, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.10,29,280/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Vide His Order Dt. 10/03/2016, Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,22,27,660/- Interalia Making A Disallowance Of Rs.1,11,97,683/- U/S 40A(3) Of The Act, On The Ground That The Assessee Had Made Cash Payments In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- For Supply Of Timber To Various Local Merchants. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority, The Assessee Submitted That None Of The Cash Payments In Question Exceeded The Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. He Produced A Cash Book & Ledger Account To Demonstrate The Fact That The 2

disallow of deduction of such payments/expenses which were not through bank either by crossed cheques or by demand draft or by pay order. It was further held by the Hon'ble High Court that: "......Apparently, this provision was directly related to curb the evasion of tax and inculcating the banking habits. Therefore, the consequences, which were to befall on account

SHREE KRISHNA GOSWAMI ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1097/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shree Krishna Goswami Vs. Pr. Cit -2, Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, 2Nd Floor, Suite213, Kolkata – 700069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeopg4309Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) not be made as the assessee has not deducted tax at source under section 194

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

disallow judiciously as per section 14A of the I. T. Act,\n1961. In this regard the reference may be drawn from the decision of\nBombay High Court also in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs.\nDCIT, Range-10(2), Mumbai [2010] 194

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

disallowance the Assessing Officer relied on the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 194c(6) and section 194

M/S RAIGANJ COMMUNICATION,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO,WARD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified – Held, yes [para 4] Section 40(a)(ia), read with sections 194

JHAUPATHARA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITI LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T. , CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 146/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Jhaupathara Samabay Krishi Unnyan Samiti Limited,...........................Appellant Jhaupathara Champi, Mahishadal, Purba Medinipur-721628, West Bengal [Pan: Aacaj1612J] -Vs.- Assistant Director Of Income Tax,............Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 48/1, 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli, Karnataka-560100 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2023 O R D E R

disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act of Rs.6,03,194/-. We notice that the assessee

MR KRISHAN KUMAR SOMANI,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance in view of the amended provisions of Section 194C(1) by the Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 01.06.2007 wherein it is proposed to amend Sub-Section (1) in Section 194C so as to include payments made by any individual or ITA No.751/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 Mr. Krishan Kr Somani vs. ITO Wdd-47(1) Kol. Page 5 Hindu

ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA, ASANSOL vs. M/S. MAA TARA TRASNPORT CO., BURNPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer V/S. M/S Maa Tara Transport Co. Ward-2(2), Parmer Radhanagar Road, P.O. Building, 54, G.T. Burnpur, Burdwan-713325 Road, Asansol-04 [Pan No.Aamfm 33326 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri B. Das, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Barsan Chatterjee, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asansol’S Order Dated 22.09.2014, Passed In Case No.142/C.I.T.(A)/Asl/W-2(2)/Asl/13-14 Restricting Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Transport Charges Of₹60,68,502/- @12.5% Only Coming To This ₹7,58,562/-, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Departmental Representative Vehemently Contends During The Course Of Hearing That Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Restricting The Impugned Disallowance Vide Following Detailed Discussion:- “24. Ground 18 Is Against Disallowance Under Section 40A(Ia). The Assessing Officer Disallowed Entries Transportation Charge As Vouchers Were Not Produced & Tax Was Not Deducted Under Section 194-I. After Hearing A Notice Was Issued To Assessing Officer As Under:-

disallowance of Rs.6,068,502/- under section 40a((ia), prior identification of personwise default under section 194-I is needed

MANABARRIE TEA COMPANY. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-7(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

disallowable under section 43B claimed in return and audit report There is inconsistency 80,194/- 0 80,194/- in any amount

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)

disallow of deduction of such payments/expenses which were not through bank either by crossed cheques or by demand draft or by pay order. It was further held by the Hon'ble High Court that: "Apparently, this provision was directly related to curb the evasion of tax and inculcating the banking habits. Therefore/ the consequences/ which were to befall on account