TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

disallowing the expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, by CPC, Bengaluru, without giving any opportunity of being heard and subsequent dismissal of appeal under Section 246A

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

disallowing the expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, by CPC, Bengaluru, without giving any opportunity of being heard and subsequent dismissal of appeal under Section 246A

APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance to be made under section 14A of the Act and deduction claimed under section 80GGB and 80G of the Act. It is also manifest that ld. CIT(A) had raised the three above noted issues from the point of view of their taxability. Since ld. AO had not applied his mind to the question of taxability or non-taxability

M/S KOLKATA WEST INTERNATIONAL CITY PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

disallowance of a sum of Rs.55,05,750/- being 75% of the Security Expenses of Rs.73,41,000/- claimed for the year. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee merely on non-prosecution. 11. Before we advert to the facts and law involved in this appeal before us, it is worth apprising ourselves on the law governing

M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of education cess of ₹6,03,51,771/-. The Ld. AO thus assessed the total income at ₹637,75,02,388/-. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that once the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is passed, the order u/s 143(1) of the Act gets merged with the order

INFOSOFT GLOBAL P LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of the claim of brokerage of Rs. 14,37,500/-, however, ground nos. 1 & 2 relating to addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- being contingent liabilities which were not I.T.A. No.: 501/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Infosoft Global (P) Ltd. debited in the profit and loss account and for which no deduction was claimed even in the computation

NISHTHA VINCOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by giving its finding as extracted under: “3. Findings and Decision of the Appellate Authority- 3.1 The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer for the AY 2012-13. As mandated under Section 246A

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

246A and 253, and submitted that, no amendment has been made to Section 263 of the Act, as a consequence of insertion to Section 144C of the Act. 5.2. Without prejudice to these arguments, the ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that clause (C) of explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act, provides that “matters not considered and decided

MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

disallowed carry forward of loss for Rs. 36282050 10 For that without prejudice to any other ground taken hereinbefore and hereinafter, the AO erred both in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case to have levied income tax of Rs. 669443385, Surcharge of Rs. 80333206 and Cess of Rs. 29991064 aggregating to Rs.779767655 on the assessee

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing the loss of Rs.59,58,100/- from trading in derivatives when contract notes were duly submitted evidencing the genuineness of the transactions 6. That on facts and in circumstances of the case, National Faceless Assessment Unit erred in adding arbitrary commission expenses of Rs.1,14,050/- when no such expense was actually incurred by the assessee. 7. That

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowance and addition under the head unexplained cash credit is not correct. 2.General: For that the appellant craves leave to adduce, modify and or alter the grounds at or before hearing. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notice dated 27.01.2021, 14.08.2023, 08.09.2023, 19.10.2023 and 30.10.2023 the appellant was requested to file reply. However, no submissions were made during

GIASUDDIN SHAIKH,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowed the claim for P.F. Rs.9,58,356.00, ESI, Rs 3,85,367.00 and Labour Insurance of Rs. 27,324.00 as neither any salary nor wages was debited to the P & L Account. Aggrieved, with the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon the grounds of appeal raised

M/S. VICTOR COMMERCIAL CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Victor Commercial Co. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Ltd., Kolkata, C/O. M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs Co., 7, C.R., Avenue, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Kolkata - 700072 Bypass, Kolkata - 700017 (Pan: Aabcv0011C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Disallowance of loss ………Rs. 6,04,477/- 5. In the instant case, the appellant is not able to show that the decision of the A.O. was arbitrary, biased, irrational, vindicative or capricious without any basis. I find no reason to inference with the decision of the A.O. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowing assessee’s export commission payments of ₹63,56,458/- and ₹19,88,798/- on account of non-deduction of TDS thereby invoking sec. 40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowing assessee’s export commission payments of ₹63,56,458/- and ₹19,88,798/- on account of non-deduction of TDS thereby invoking sec. 40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowing the claim of LTCG treating the same to be accommodation entries against commission paid to the entry providers. The reassessment was completed on a total income of Rs.90.39 lakhs (including an addition of Rs. 68.64 lakhs on account of bogus claim of LTCG plus Rs.3.43 lakhs being the alleged commission @ 5%, paid to brokers ( entry providers ) . 5) The matter

JAI MATADI ENTERPRISE,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 42(1),, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed 5% of the unverified expenses totalling to ₹9,97,22,125/- i.e. ₹49,86,106/- and accordingly made an addition of ₹49,86,106/- to the total income declared by the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹54,20,456/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee

STARPOINT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the facts and circumstances of the case, assessment order and noted that despite issuing 4 notices, the assessee did not file any reply during the appellate proceeding