DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT(OSD)(TDS),WD-5(3),DARJEELING, DARJEELING.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.06.215. 5. That on the facts of the case, the ld. AO(TDS) has erred in law by initiating proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(lA) of the I.T.Act,1961 without satisfying himself as to whether the deductee/payee assessee has failed to pay taxes directly, which has been held

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1),SILIGURI. , SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.06.215. 5. That on the facts of the case, the ld. AO(TDS) has erred in law by initiating proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(lA) of the I.T.Act,1961 without satisfying himself as to whether the deductee/payee assessee has failed to pay taxes directly, which has been held

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

1,28,350/- and Sanskriti Sarees Rs. 76,250/-. However, the TDS on the above payments were made at the rate of 2% u/s 194C whereas as a matter of fact, TDS should have been deducted at the rate of 10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance

ITO, WD-41(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAJJAN KUMAR SHARMA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.687/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08

194A of the act, and where such tax has not been deducted or after deducted has not been paid; (A) in a case where the tax was deductible and was so deducted during the last month of the previous year, on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 ; or (B) in any other case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

1) of the Act- provision for foreseeable loss made in accordance with guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited in audited accounts of company is an allowable expenditure. The Tribunal decided the case in favour of the assessee and held that 'yes' it is an allowable expenditure. The Tribunal while deciding this issue has also considered the decision of Mazagon

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

1) of the Act- provision for foreseeable loss made in accordance with guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited in audited accounts of company is an allowable expenditure. The Tribunal decided the case in favour of the assessee and held that 'yes' it is an allowable expenditure. The Tribunal while deciding this issue has also considered the decision of Mazagon

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

1) of the Act- provision for foreseeable loss made in accordance with guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited in audited accounts of company is an allowable expenditure. The Tribunal decided the case in favour of the assessee and held that 'yes' it is an allowable expenditure. The Tribunal while deciding this issue has also considered the decision of Mazagon

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 194A of the Act is relatively applicable to the facts of the case on hand and reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities relied on the case law reported in 355 ITR 94. The Ld.DR relied on the order of CIT-A. 17. Heard both the sides and perused the record. It is noticed that the assessee

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR- 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance on this account was made by the department in the earlier years. In support of this contention, he placed the copy of the Learned CIT(A) order for the Asst Year 2007-08. ITA Nos.1916/K/12 & 113/K/13-C-AM United Bank of India 9 9.3. We have heard the rival submissions and find that the provisions of section 194A

SUBIR ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Ao That Post Dated Cheques For Short As Pdcs Were Issued Against Such Loan To The Said Finance Company & Therefore, The Assessee Was Not In A Position To Deduct Tax At Source On Interest Payments. This Explanation Of The Assessee Was Not Acceptable To Ao & As Such Added Said Amount 1 Of Rs.6,74,976/- To The Total Income Of Assessee For Violation Of Section 194A Of The Act By Invoking The Provisions U/Sec 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

section 194A(1) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 7. Before us the ld.AR submits

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAMPION COMMERCIAL CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Champion P-7, Chowringhee Commercial Co. Ltd., Square, 3Rd Floor, P-15, Cit Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-73 [Pan No.Aabcc 2373 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “I. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,50,938/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Overrule The Judicial Pronouncement Of Cit Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited (1951) (191) Itr (Sc) Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.13,91,404/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The It Act, 1961. Iii. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.20,25,329/- On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The

194A. vi. That on the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,28,655/- on a wrong appreciation of facts ignoring the provisions laid down in section 194J in the It Act, 1961. vii. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

1 to 15 is decided in favour of the assessee. 13 M/s.Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 5. The next ground of appeal as appearing in the grounds of appeal is against the deletion of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of sustenance of professional charges of Rs.2,93,404/-. 6. This ground

ACIT, CIRCLE-41, NADIA, NADIA vs. M/S SAKTINAGAR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITY LTD., NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

194A. I find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the assessee and uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) deleting the disallowance made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia). Ground no 1

BIBHISANPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA/ WBG-W-176(3), HALDIA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 80P is adjudicated in the succeeding paras. Page 2 of 30 I.T.A. No.: 1021/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bibhisanpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. 5. The Ld. AO considered the submission of the assessee and added the amount by holding as under: “4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed

M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

disallow the expenditure, due to non deduction of tax at source, even in .a situation in which corresponding income is brought to tax in the hands of the recipient. The scheme of Section 40(a)(ia), as we see it, is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed as deduction in the hands of an assessee

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA vs. EDMOND FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the Act and consequently disallowing the corresponding interest expenditure of Rs. 1,94,958/-. In order to understand issue under consideration, it would be appropriate to bring on record the facts of the case in brief. The appellant is a non- banking financial company. In the course of its business, the appellant receives inter-corporate deposits from

AXIX OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 194A of the Act. However, AO disregarded the contention of the assessee and made the disallowance of the interest expense claimed by the assessee for ₹1