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

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]

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

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

3)(v) of the Act excluding the Co-operative Banks from the definition of "Co-operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under Section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that species of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled

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

disallowance of Rs. 34,02,370/- u/s 40(a)(ia) which is totally unjustified and not based on facts deserves to be deleted.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 M/s. Batram Properties Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 7. The submission of the ld. DR was of the clause

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

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

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

v. Asstt. CIT (supra) wherein the assessee's claims of foreseeable losses were allowed irrespective of method of accounting in terms of AS-7. In the case of Dredging International (supra), the issue before the Tribunal was whether under s. 37(1) of the Act- provision for foreseeable loss made in accordance with guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited

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

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

v. Asstt. CIT (supra) wherein the assessee's claims of foreseeable losses were allowed irrespective of method of accounting in terms of AS-7. In the case of Dredging International (supra), the issue before the Tribunal was whether under s. 37(1) of the Act- provision for foreseeable loss made in accordance with guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited

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

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

v. Asstt. CIT (supra) wherein the assessee's claims of foreseeable losses were allowed irrespective of method of accounting in terms of AS-7. In the case of Dredging International (supra), the issue before the Tribunal was whether under s. 37(1) of the Act- provision for foreseeable loss made in accordance with guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

v Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). 7. We find from the above facts that both the creditors have confirmed the transaction and also filed details of their assessment particulars and these credits are given out of their bank account but the AO did not carry out any exercise whatsoever to verify these unsecured loans as is clearly evidenced

SRI HARTAJ SEWA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

v. CIT reported in 87 taxmann 108 (Bom). However on perusal of the same, we find that the facts of the case are different with the case on hand. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was based on the expenses incurred by the assessee over and above the lease consideration by way of making payment

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.

194A(1) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 7. Before us the ld.AR submits that the interest on motor vehicle was paid to M/s. Sundaram Finance and EMI’s were deducted from bank through PDCs that were issued. There is no chance to assessee to deduct any TDS from such payment. The ld.AR

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

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

v. That on the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,33,789/- on a wrong appreciation of facts ignoring the provisions laid down in section 195 in the I Act, 1961 w.r.t. 194A. vi. That on the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SMT. CHAMPA NANDI, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Acit, Circle-25, Kolkata Vs. Smt. Champa Nandi 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Flat No.Ud-0606, Udita Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata – 700 068. Complex, 1050/1, Survey Park, E.M. Byepass, Kolkata – 700 075. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abqpn 6470 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

disallowance of interest paid to different parties amounting to Rs.4,41,12,662/- u/s 40(a)(ia). 2. That the ld. CIT(A)-7/Kol was wrong in holding that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the instant case for Assessment Year 2012-13 although second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable

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

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 various entities and bodies corporate which

ITO, WD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ito(E), Wd-1(3), Kolkata Vs. The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen 6Th Floor, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata Iif Center, 335, Rajdanga Main – 700 071. Road, East Kolkata Township, P.O. Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt 6606 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

194A [Interest other than ‘interest on securities’] and, u/s 194C [payments to contractors]. We note that the difference arises because of timing of the transactions, which is the common issue in TDS matters. The relevant comparative facts and figures are given below: As per form 26AS As per assessee Difference Income 3

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

disallowed. Ld. CIT further observed that even it is presumed that the loan creditors are genuine then also the interest expense is not allowed for deduction by virtue of the provision of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (b) There were three credit entries reflecting in the bank statement of assessee for total amount of ₹ 3.5 lakh received from