DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OP. 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

disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS u/s. 194A of the Act. In response to show cause notice, the appellant again reiterated that interest paid by a co- operative society to another co-operative society is exempt from TDS u/s. 194A of the Act and objected the proposed addition. But again submission

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

disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS u/s. 194A of the Act. In response to show cause notice, the appellant again reiterated that interest paid by a co- operative society to another co-operative society is exempt from TDS u/s. 194A of the Act and objected the proposed addition. But again submission

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]

194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction of tax at source but in a case, where there is a complete non- deduction of tax at source

ITO, WD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BATRAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.983/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(1) -Vs.- M/S. Batram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccb 0291 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl.Cit For The Respondent : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

194A(3)(iii)(e) of the I.T.Act,1961, which specifically exempt any company or co-operative society carrying on the business of insurance from deduction of tax at source. However, the ld. AO while allowing interest of Rs. 1,01,120/- paid to ICICI Bank, he disallowed interest of Rs. 34,02,370/- paid to Reliance Capital Ltd. treating

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

194A(1) shall not apply to demand deposits and hence the assessee bank is not liable to deduct tax at source on interest provided on those demand deposits. Hence in these circumstances, we find that the Learned CITA had rightly granted relief to the assessee bank in this regard. Accordingly, the ground no. 3 raised by the revenue is dismissed

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

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

iii) Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [20097314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422 (SC). ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 30 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The respondent- assessee is engaged in the execution of an infrastructure development project

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

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

iii) Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [20097314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422 (SC). ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 30 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The respondent- assessee is engaged in the execution of an infrastructure development project

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

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

iii) Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [20097314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422 (SC). ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 30 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The respondent- assessee is engaged in the execution of an infrastructure development project

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

194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption or deduction, under the special provisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act. 16. If the legislative intent is so clear, then it cannot contended

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.,

In the result, ITA No. 1636/Kol/2014 (Revenue’s appeal) is dismissed, ITA No

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of such interest. As per provisions contained in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) read with Notification No. S03489( dated

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.,

In the result, ITA No. 1636/Kol/2014 (Revenue’s appeal) is dismissed, ITA No

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of such interest. As per provisions contained in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) read with Notification No. S03489( dated

EASTERN COALFILELDS LTD. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, ITA No. 1636/Kol/2014 (Revenue’s appeal) is dismissed, ITA No

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of such interest. As per provisions contained in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) read with Notification No. S03489( dated

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. SHRI PINTU BHATTACHARJEE, BURDWAN

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Acit, Circle-1, V/S. Shri Pintu Bhattacharjee Aayakar Bhavan, Court Memari Old Lic Math, G.T. Compound,Burdwan- Road, Memari, 713101 Burdwan-713146 [Pan No.Adepb 8283 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent S.M.S. Tauheed, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 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 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asamsol’S Order Dated 30.10.2014 In Case No.178/C.I.T.(A)/Asl/Acit/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3)/144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Identical Former Grievance Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts On The Deleting Disallowance / Additions Of ₹39,94,137/- Pertaining To Higher Depreciation Rate Claimed On Transmit Complete Mixer & Loaders & Also Granting Relief Of ₹4,73,249/- Regarding Lower Loader Machine; Respectively. We Notice That Cit(A) Discuss In On This Issue Reads As Under:- “6. Ground 2 Is Against Not Granting Depreciation At Higher Rates For Concrete Mixers & Payloaders, Vibrator Soil Compactor Etc. Is Settled In The Cases Reported In Vikram Ispat Vs. State Of Maharastra Air 2003 Bombay 498 P

194A. Before Assessing Officer the assessee relied on section 36(1)(iii) and stated that in view of this sub-section 40(a)(ia) will not apply. 10. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer mentioned that the purchase was on basis of a hire purchase agreement and assessee is liable to deduct tax at source on interest payment

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

194A, 194C, 194 H, 194- I, and 194 J either at the time of payment or at the time of giving credit to the recipient, section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. In view of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam (supra) relied upon by the appellant and also in view of the ratio

ALCLAD FABRICATION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA

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

section 194a(iii)(f) of Income Tax Act,1961. So Relief claimed Rs 1,93,407/- 3)That the addition of Rs 37,776/- on account of Donation & subscription for the whole year is against the principle of natural justice as the said expenses have been incurred for the whole year including for Vishwakarma Puja at factory cum godown& different

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]

3. Briefly stated facts are that the AO made disallowance of freight and transport charges to the extent of Rs.3,28,197/- for non-deduction of TDS u/s. 194A of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO made disallowance of the following payments: “i) Payment to Shri Manoj Kumar sing amounting

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

iii) Administrative expense 2,91,508 However, AO was of the view that the assessee has claimed interest expenses in its profit and loss account but no disallowance on account of interest has been made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of IT Rules. Accordingly, AO made the disallowance of ₹22,47,060/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of IT Rules