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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-. 18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY 2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the finding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed. 19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

M/S THAKUR PRASAD SAO & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110% of that sum, i.e., `52,56,197/-. By no stretch of imagination can Section

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

section 197 of the companies Act, 2013 and the assessee company has not provided any evidences such as application made to Central Gout for regularization of the said excess payment and/or proof of Central Government has regularized the excess payment made by the assessee. Since, the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of the excess payment made to Directors

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

section 197 of the companies Act, 2013 and the assessee company has not provided any evidences such as application made to Central Gout for regularization of the said excess payment and/or proof of Central Government has regularized the excess payment made by the assessee. Since, the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of the excess payment made to Directors

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), we can only say that a decision cannot be an authority for a legal question which has not been dealt with in that decision, or not having been raise d in that case. 10. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the conclusions arrived

DCIT,CIRCLE-52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDER . S. JAMUMBDER &CO,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), we can only say that a decision cannot be an authority for a legal question which has not been dealt with in that decision, or not having been raise d in that case. 10. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the conclusions arrived

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), we can only say that a decision cannot be an authority for a legal question which has not been dealt with in that decision, or not having been raise d in that case. 10. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the conclusions arrived

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

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

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

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

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

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

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

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

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

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]

disallowance of clearing and forwarding charges at Rs.3,28,197/- for non-deduction of TDS u/s. 194C of the Act by invoking the provisions of section

TAJPUR S.K.U.S LTD.,MAHISHADAL, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. LD. DCIT , PRESTIGE ALPHA NO.48/1, 48/2 BERATENAAGRAHARA BEGUR, HOSUR ROAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act at Rs.6,03,194/-.” 4.1. The assessee has cited the following case laws in support of his argument: Sl. Citation ITA No. Date of Asst. No. Pronouncement Year 1 Shree Navavaghniya Seva Sahkari 03/03/2023 2019-20 Mandali Ltd. Vs. The DCIT/ACIT (CPC) CPC, Bengaluru 2 Aliudepur Seva Sahakari Mandli ITA Nos.269

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

disallowing advances written off amounting to Rs.190,034 in terms of section 28 read with section 37 of the Act.” 14.2. The ld AR argued that the party wise details of advance to suppliers written off during the year under appeal are enclosed in additional evidences filed before this tribunal. She requested for the same to be admitted for better

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

disallowing advances written off amounting to Rs.190,034 in terms of section 28 read with section 37 of the Act.” 14.2. The ld AR argued that the party wise details of advance to suppliers written off during the year under appeal are enclosed in additional evidences filed before this tribunal. She requested for the same to be admitted for better

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Patton International Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O Jain Vinod K & Income-Tax, Kolkata-1. Associates, 41A, A. J. C. Vs Bose Road, Diamond . Prestige Nirman, 6Th Floor, Suite No.613, Kolkata- 700017 (Pan: Aabcp7901M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect commission paid to the Managing Director/Directors of the assessee company for non- deduction of tax at source as well as non-compliance of section 197

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount suo-moto 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited disallowed by the assessee. T . The disallowance should, in any case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NEWDEAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08

197 taxmann. 18, where Hon'ble deleted the addition of disallowance of interest made by the AO and held that shares were purchased not for acquiring controlling rights in another company. Ld. AR further relied another case of law Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ACIT v. Laxmi Agents 125 ITR 227 (Guj), where Hon'ble court

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,JHARKHAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 197 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. Going by detailed reasons recorded by Assessing Officer, I find that the genuineness of payment and purpose of payment is not established to satisfaction of Assessing Officer. Accordingly I uphold the disallowance