GLOBAL VENTURE CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 201(1) of the Act then no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted. 14. Before

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowed the interest paid under section 201(1A) of the Act. It was held that it cannot assume the character

M/S PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL AND RESERCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1107/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2009-10 M/S Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcp 7225 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 201(1A)………" 5.1. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and by respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct that no disallowance

M/S GHOSH & CHAKRABORTY TRANSPORT,BURDWAN vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

disallowance under section 40a(ia) including the furnishing PAN in the TDS return, the claim now made by assessee. Matters concerning TDS return govern demand under section 201

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh in the light of first proviso to section 201

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

201(1) r/w second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As opined by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi supra that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature having retrospective effect from 01-04-2005 and the case on hand being for A.Y 2005-06, in our view

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

201(1). The insertion of the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) also requires to be viewed in the same manner. This again is a proviso intended to benefit the Assessee. The effect of the legal fiction created thereby is to treat the Assessee as a person not in default of deducting tax at source under certain contingencies

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.2199/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S Rungta Mines Pvt. Ltd. 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6463N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowed by invoking the provisions of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. Relevant portion of his order is reproduced herein below:- “ I have considered the finding of the AO on this issue in the assessment order and the submission made by the AR during the appellate proceedings. I find that my predecessor has given a detailed finding

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed by invoking the provisions of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. Relevant portion of his order is reproduced herein below:- “ I have considered the finding of the AO on this issue in the assessment order and the submission made by the AR during the appellate proceedings. I find that my predecessor has given a detailed finding

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

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

disallowance of Rs.11,10,201/- under Section 14A of the Income –tax Act, 1961. Although in the Ground of appeal

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

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

disallowance of Rs.11,10,201/- under Section 14A of the Income –tax Act, 1961. Although in the Ground of appeal

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

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

disallowance of Rs.11,10,201/- under Section 14A of the Income –tax Act, 1961. Although in the Ground of appeal

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

disallowance does not apply in case an assessee is not in default u/s 201(1) first proviso of the Act if the payees’ concerned stand assessed. Mr. Choudhury quotes hon’ble apex court’s decision in (2018) 302 CTR 201(SC) holding CIT vs. Calcutta Export Company similar first proviso to section

ANUP NAYAK,ASANSOL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.120/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anup Nayak………...……………………..…………………....Appellant 161, P N Malia Road, Raniganj, West Bengal – 713325. [Pan: Adfpn8917M] Vs. Cit(A), Delhi……………..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals). Kolkata [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Confirming The Demand Raised Under Section 201(1) Read With Section 201(1A) Of The Act 2. Brief Facts Of The Case The Assessee Is Engaged In The Contractual Business Of Mining Work & Trading. During The Relevant Financial Year 2011-12, The Assessee Failed To Deduct Tax At Source (Tds) As Required Under Chapter Xvii-B Of The Income-Tax Act & Also Failed To File Tds Returns, On Scrutiny, It Was Found That The Assessee Had Debited The Following Expenditures In Its Profit & Loss Account Without Deduction Of Tax At Source: Dumper Hire Charges: Rs.8,42,365 Lease Rent: Rs.23,27,000

disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) and also initiated proceedings under section 201(1) read with section 201

M/S THE RIGHT ADDRESS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,(TDS) WARD-59(4) (TDS),KOLKATA KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 201 (lA) for the said years and the assessee had accepted the said finding. " In the case of Thomas Muthoot vs. DCIT (2012) 34 CCH 0170 (copy enclosed at Page 1-12 of the Paper Book), the Cochin Tribunal discussed the case of the assessee in detail. In this case, the assessee failed to deduct the TDS on payments

M/S POWER MAX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8, KOL., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 125/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Power Max (India) Pvt. Ltd....................................………………………….............Appellant 18A, Park Street, Stephen Court, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 9559 R] Dcit Circle 8 Kolkata..………………………………………………………….............Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri A.N. Chatterjee, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 05, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 15, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 18, Kolkata Dated 19.12.2016. 2. At The Time Of Hearing Before The Tribunal, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Pressed Ground No 1 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee. It Is Also Noted That Ground No 4 Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal In General Which Does Not Call For Specific Adjudication.

section 201 of the Act, but no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Respectfully

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed an amount of Rs.92,12,637.00 u/s 36(1)(va), as the Employees’ PF and ESI contributions were paid after the due date but before the filing the Income Tax Return under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee had made delayed payment of interest on TDS under section 201