KATHLEEN CONFECTIONERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to mention here that under section 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act, the following amount is allowable as deduction if paid by the assessee before due date

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

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon'ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia (supra

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

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon'ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia (supra

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

disallowance made 43B read with section u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totalling to Rs.10,10,774/-. The issue relating to grounds taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

3) of the Income Tax Act. The assesese has taken five grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 35(1

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia). Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. Grounds No. 3

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 58/5B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 [Pan: Aakcs3206R] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Acit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. R. Kothari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “For That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Alleged Late Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi Etc. To The Extent Of Rs.792872/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer In Summary Assessment.”

3. The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is relating to the disallowance/adjustment made by the Assessing Officer/CPC on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act in the summary assessment carried out u/s 143(1) of the Act. 4. Apart from oral

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

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) 3 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics

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

1) of section 14A were applicable there was no justification\nfor disallowing sub-section (2) and (3) thereof which only

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

disallowed under section 143(3). [Para 16] It followed that the effective and operative order was the one under section 143(3) and, therefore, the question of seeking rectification of the order under section 143(1

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

1) of section 14A were applicable there was no justification\nfor disallowing sub-section (2) and (3) thereof which only

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the sustaining the order of ld. AO. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising multiple grounds of appeals. First we take up ground no. 1 which is general

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

1) of section 14A were applicable there was no justification\nfor disallowing sub-section (2) and (3) thereof which only

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

1) of section 14A were applicable there was no justification\nfor disallowing sub-section (2) and (3) thereof which only

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

3. We have considered the rival submissions and also gone through the documents\non record. For the sake of reference, the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act\nas they stood prior to amendment, and relevant for the assessment year under\nconsideration are as under:\n\"v) disallowance

PRATAP KUNDU,BANKURA JOGIPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 First Choice Ready Mix................................................................……Appellant R No.2A&B, 2Nd Floor, Anandpur Sarachi Tower, E M Byepass Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107. [Pan: Aadff9917A] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vigyaneshward Nath Datta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratap Kundu...............................................................................……Appellant Jogipara, Bankura, P.O & Dist-Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Amupk9918R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. K. Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023

3. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal would show that the only issue raised in this appeal is relating to the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with section

FIRST CHOICE READY MIX,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 First Choice Ready Mix................................................................……Appellant R No.2A&B, 2Nd Floor, Anandpur Sarachi Tower, E M Byepass Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107. [Pan: Aadff9917A] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vigyaneshward Nath Datta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratap Kundu...............................................................................……Appellant Jogipara, Bankura, P.O & Dist-Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Amupk9918R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. K. Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023

3. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal would show that the only issue raised in this appeal is relating to the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with section

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

3) of the Income Tax Act. The assesese has taken five grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 35(1

ORIENT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

3) of the Income Tax Act. The assesese has taken five grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 35(1