D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KEVENTER AGRO LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 41(1) of the Act. However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the revenue against the ld. CIT(A)’s order for A.Y.2005-06 has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT which is pending for adjudication. Accordingly the AO treated the amount of sales tax incentive

M/S KEVENTER AGRO LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 41(1) of the Act. However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the revenue against the ld. CIT(A)’s order for A.Y.2005-06 has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT which is pending for adjudication. Accordingly the AO treated the amount of sales tax incentive

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

253/-, being 90% of\nthe actual disallowance made by the AO of Rs.45,43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct

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

253/-, being 90% of the actual disallowance\nmade by the Ld. AO of ₹45,43,615/- under repairs and maintenance\nwithout there being any justification of as to why such disallowance\nshould be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n24.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY\n2012-13 in the preceding para

SHRI DINESH KUMAR GHOSH ,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 38, , MIDNAPORE

In the result, this ground and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 2015/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Kumar Ghosh.......………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant Garhbeta-Iii,Karamsole P.O. Kiaboni P.S. Garhbeta Paschim Medinipur – 721 253 [Pan : Arkpg 5318 G] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-38, Midnapore…….........…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 3Rd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 26Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/06/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is In The Business Of Trading In Wood & Timber. He Filed His Return Of Income On 29/10/2013, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.10,29,280/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Vide His Order Dt. 10/03/2016, Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,22,27,660/- Interalia Making A Disallowance Of Rs.1,11,97,683/- U/S 40A(3) Of The Act, On The Ground That The Assessee Had Made Cash Payments In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- For Supply Of Timber To Various Local Merchants. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority, The Assessee Submitted That None Of The Cash Payments In Question Exceeded The Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. He Produced A Cash Book & Ledger Account To Demonstrate The Fact That The 2

section 40A(3) of the Act. ” 8. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above referred case, to the facts of the case on hand, we delete the entire disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act, as factually and legally incorrect. In the result, this ground and appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. In the result

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance as worked out by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under section 14A is not reasonable. We, therefore, find no justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and upholding the same, we dismiss the Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 20. Now we take up the cross appeals filed

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹10,81,150/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹10,81,150/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section