SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU / I.T.O., CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

23. Contention – 3 An amending provision can certainly give guidance to interpretation of the existing old provisions. Accordingly, the application of rigour of section 36(1)(va) of the Act w.e.f. asst. yr. 2021-22 (as so held by various benches of Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal) by Finance Act, 2021 even after recognizing the position

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

va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before

M/S. BINDHYA BASHINI TRADERS,LIUAH, HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and had filed its return of income on 16.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 60,69,380/-. The return was processed by the CPC making addition of Rs. 23

M/S. BINDHYA BASHINI TRADERS ,LILUAH, HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and had filed its return of income on 16.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 60,69,380/-. The return was processed by the CPC making addition of Rs. 23

NORBEN TEA & EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

va) and are disallowed on account of non-fulfillment of the conditions specified therein, further resort cannot be had to the general provisions of section 37(1) of the Act for allowing the delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 10. Ground no. 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) relates to double

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

disallowance of audit fees of ₹2,08,540/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act debited in the profit and loss account.\n16.1 The assessee claims that the issue may be sent back to the AO for\nverification of the documents as the statutory auditors of the assessee\nare appointed sometime after the year end unlike the statutory auditors

M/S KIRITIKUNJ AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

23. Contention – 3 An amending provision can certainly give guidance to interpretation of the existing old provisions. Accordingly, the application of rigour of section 36(1)(va) of the Act w.e.f. asst. yr. 2021-22 (as so held by various benches of Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal) by Finance Act, 2021 even after recognizing the position

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment\nof the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State\nof Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the\naforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu\nGeneral Sales

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment\nof the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State\nof Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the\naforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu\nGeneral Sales

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

va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non- obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before

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

va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non- obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.6,23,893/ as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(2), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.6,23,893/ as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(2), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.6,23,893/ as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

va) of the Act to the extent of such payments and the rest of the additions shall be confirmed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 18. Ground No. 7 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in not upholding the disallowance of WBSCB Core Banking Project expenses

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO who proceeded on erroneous belief and misconception of law in disallowing interest on income tax and service tax of Rs. 4,23

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO who proceeded on erroneous belief and misconception of law in disallowing interest on income tax and service tax of Rs. 4,23

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO who proceeded on erroneous belief and misconception of law in disallowing interest on income tax and service tax of Rs. 4,23