LEXICON COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

271C and, therefore, section 40(a)(i) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal-vs-ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra – Trib) had held that the second proviso to Section

DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that or Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

271C and, therefore, section 40(a)(i) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal-vs-ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra – Trib) had held that the second proviso to Section

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

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "1685/Kol/2017", "34/JAL/CIT(A)/JAL/2015-16", "115-O", "115-P", "36(1)(via)", "6ABA", "36(1)(viia)", "40(a)(ia)", "194J", "194-I", "271C", "194LBB", "194J", "194-I", "36(1)(va)", "40(a)(ia)" ], "issues": "The primary issues involved the correct status of the assessee (Co-operative Society vs. Company), the applicability of dividend distribution tax, disallowances

A.C.I.T. CIR - 3,SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. NANU SHOME, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), contains lot of force. This amendment has been held to be retrospective in nature by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt Ltd reported in 377 ITR 635 (Del), wherein it has been held as below: Section 40(a)(ia) was introduced

ASHOK KUMAR BUDHIA,PURULIA vs. I.T.O WD - 3(2),PURILIA, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

271C, and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann. com 555 (Agra-Trib) had held that the second proviso to Section

M/S TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION,HOOGHLY vs. CIT-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act could be made. Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act together with second proviso, is reproduced herein below for the sake of clarity:- Section 40: Amounts not deductible 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to [38], the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under

M/S TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION.,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O WD - 1(4),HOOGHLY., HOOGHLY

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

271C, and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann. com 555 (Agra-Trib) had held that the second proviso to Section

RAN VIJAY SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-28, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm I.T.A. No. 2223/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ran Vijay Singh...............................………………………………….......................................Appellant 2, Hide Road, Kolkata – 700 043 [Pan: Amhps 8770 J] Dcit Cir 28....……………………………………………………...............................................Respondent 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 Appearances By: Shri M.D. Shah, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04 , 2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals) – Xiv, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Learned Ar Submits That The A.O. Made Addition Of Rs. 63,16,063/- For Non Deduction Of Tds By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. The Cit(A) Deleted The Addition To An Extent Of Rs. 43,77,000/- Holding That The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Is Not Applicable As The Said Payment Paid On Account Of Rent To M/S. Kolkata Port Trust In View Of The Certificate Issued U/S 197(1) Of The Act By The Income Tax Department & Confirmed The Balance Sheet Of Rs. 19,39,066/-. The Learned Ar Relied On The Decision Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi In The Case Of Ansal Land Mark Township

disallow the expenditure, due to non deduction of tax at source, even in a situation in which corresponding income is brought to tax in the hands of the recipient. The scheme of section 40(a)(ia), as we see it, is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed as deduction in the hands of an assessee

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHILPA CREATION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal for Revenue is 7

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2005-06

disallowance of expenses was made by AO as discussed above on account of non-deduction of TDS under the provision of Section 194C of the Act. However, assessee before Ld. CIT(A) claimed that the above expenses represented the reimbursement of the expenses and therefore the provision of Section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. ASHIRBAD REAL ESTATE & TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee in CO 1/2012 is dismissed and revenue appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09 (Appellant ) (Respondent) A.C.I.T., Circle-1, -Versus- Ashirbad Real Estate & Asansol Transport Pvt.Ltd. Burdwan (Pan:Aaeca 8075 C) C.O.No.1/Kol/2012 A/O Ita No.1591/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ashirbad Real Estate & -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Transport Pvt.Ltd., Burdwan Asansol (Pan Aaeca 8075 C) (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Cit (Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Aravind Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In Appeal No142/Cit(A)/Asl/Range-1/Asl/10-11 Dated 27.09.2011 For The Asst Year 2008-09 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

271C. and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) isn't attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal-vs.- ACIT [2014] 45 axmann.com 555 (Agra - Trib.) had held that the second proviso to Section

DIPAK CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 40(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

271C and, therefore, section 40(a)(i) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal-vs-ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra – Trib) had held that the second proviso to Section

DIPAK CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 40(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

271C and, therefore, section 40(a)(i) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal-vs-ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra – Trib) had held that the second proviso to Section

ACIT,CIRCLE-HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. SRI ANANDA NARAYAN MAITY,, PURBA MEDINIPUR

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

271C and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal –vs- ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555(Agra- Trib) had held that the second proviso to Section

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

271C, and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann. com 555 (Agra-Trib) had held that the second proviso to Section

RAJDEEP PRASAD SHAW,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD-51(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

271C and, therefore section 40(a)(ia) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra-Trib) has held that the second proviso to Section

RAJDEEP PRASAD SHAW,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD-51(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

271C and, therefore section 40(a)(ia) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra-Trib) has held that the second proviso to Section

RANJANA ROY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.WD - 42(3),KOL., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

271C and, therefore section 40(a)(ia) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra-Trib) has held that the second proviso to Section

I.T.O WD - 28(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAN VIJAY SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance ought to have been made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” Taking a consistent view in the case of Gourishankra Bihani (supra) we find that as such there was no need on the part of assessee to deduct TDS from the payment made to KPT. In the similar facts of the case in Civil Appeal