D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso. (ii) Explanation 2 to Section 195(1) of the Act :— 'Section 195 - Other sums: (1

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

201, then, for the purpose of this sub- clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.' (ii) Explanation 2 to Section 195(1) of the Act :-- 'Section 195 - Other sums: (1

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

201, then, for the purpose of this sub- clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.' (ii) Explanation 2 to Section 195(1) of the Act :-- 'Section 195 - Other sums: (1

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

1) of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court had decided the issue in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 7.9 From the analysis of the above cases it can be seen that there is a consensus among the Courts and it has been consistently held that interest paid u/s 201(1A) for delay

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.' (ii) Explanation 2 to Section 195(1) of the Act:— 10 I.T.A. No. 140/Kol/2018 Assessment Year

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

201 In M/s. Vijay Industries (supra), decided on 1 March 2019, a three judge Bench of 9, a three judge Bench of this Court held that the provisions of Section 80AB which were introduced by the Finance this Court held that the provisions of Section 80AB which were introduced by the Finance this Court held that the provisions of Section

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 are not satisfied and accordingly upheld the disallowance of Rs 1,15,716/- made

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 201(1) of the Act are not satisfied and accordingly upheld the disallowance of Rs 1,15,716/- made

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)

1) and 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

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

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on account of assessee’s failure to deduct tax at source under section 194G could be said to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue calling for revision under section 263 by the ld. CIT. In support of the assessee’s case on this issue, the ld. counsel

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

disallowed the said expenses to the extent of\n*95.65 lakh (3/4th of ₹127.53 lakh) on the alleged ground that the said\nexpenses are deferred revenue expenses and, therefore, the expenses\nare allowed over a span of 4 years. He has also gone through the appeal\non identical issue decided by him for the earlier year

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

disallowed the said expenses to the extent of\n*95.65 lakh (3/4th of ₹127.53 lakh) on the alleged ground that the said\nexpenses are deferred revenue expenses and, therefore, the expenses\nare allowed over a span of 4 years. He has also gone through the appeal\non identical issue decided by him for the earlier year

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

disallowed the said expenses to the extent of\n*95.65 lakh (3/4th of ₹127.53 lakh) on the alleged ground that the said\nexpenses are deferred revenue expenses and, therefore, the expenses\nare allowed over a span of 4 years. He has also gone through the appeal\non identical issue decided by him for the earlier year

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

disallowed the said expenses to the extent of\n*95.65 lakh (3/4th of ₹127.53 lakh) on the alleged ground that the said\nexpenses are deferred revenue expenses and, therefore, the expenses\nare allowed over a span of 4 years. He has also gone through the appeal\non identical issue decided by him for the earlier year

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

201 (Delhi)- Order dated 21.05.2015. Sr. 1 to 8 (index) 5 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 13/KOL/2023 (in ITA No. 546/KOL/2023) Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd. The copies of these decisions have been filed before us as discernable from the above Index. 9. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the assessment

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

201 1-12 and 2012-13. Payment for Information Technology ('IT') Service Cost 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in disregarding the direction of the Ld. DRP to delete the ALP adjustment of INR 3, 58, 02,269/- in respect of payment of IT service cost, though

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHATOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was warranted in respect of the aforesaid three payments for which the assessee had obtained NIL certificates u/s 195 of the Act from the ADIT(IT)-2(1), Kolkata. However the mere fact that the assessee obtained certificates u/s 195 of the Act in relation to three specific payments by itself did not grant