D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

31. The scheme of taxability in India, so far as the non residents, are concerned, is like this. Section 5(2), which deals with the taxability of income in the hands of a non-resident, provides that “the total income of any previous year of a person who is a non-resident includes all income from whatever source derived which

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

31. The scheme of taxability in India, so far as the non-residents, are concerned, is like this. Section 5 (2), which deals with the taxability of income in the hands of a non-resident, provides that "the total income of any previous year of a person who is a non-resident includes all income from whatever source derived which

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

31. The scheme of taxability in India, so far as the non-residents, are concerned, is like this. Section 5 (2), which deals with the taxability of income in the hands of a non-resident, provides that "the total income of any previous year of a person who is a non-resident includes all income from whatever source derived which

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted.' When the transaction does not atract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there 16. is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has no case and the Tax Case

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 36(1)(va) are not applicable in the assessment year under consideration for the present case as it is for AY 2017 year under consideration for the present case as it is for AY 2017 year under consideration for the present case as it is for AY 2017-18 and therefore according to him, the decision

M/S KOHINOOR STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

disallowances made by Learned Assessing Officer is wrong in the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition of Rs. 83750000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act while treating the same as assessee’s own money. 3. That

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

1) of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court had decided the issue in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 7.9 From the analysis of the above cases it can be seen that there is a consensus among the Courts and it has been consistently held that interest paid u/s 201(1A) for delay

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

section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief

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

section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief

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

section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief

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

section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

disallowance, if any, has to be made in the year in which they were claimed. It cannot be taxed as income of this year unless it falls under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. Let us now examine the scope of Sec. 41(1) of the Act. 8. Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194G is highly debatable on which one possible view was taken by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment under section 143(3)/144 wherein no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was made by him. It is well settled position of law that when a possible view has been taken

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

31,703/-. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the business premises of the assessee and residence of the Directors on 13.12.2012. Since time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) on the original return was not 3 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 13/KOL/2023 (in ITA No. 546/KOL/2023) Shalimar Hatcheries

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

31,400/- to Mr.Gaurav Chatterjee. In explanation to an amount of Rs. 1,13,700/- on account of instrument Hire Charges assessee submitted through reply on 05- 12-2008 that it did not pay more than Rs. 1,20,000/- to any single party as the studio provides their studios room with furniture and equipment on rent to the music

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

31 and section 33 of the 1922 Act does not countenance the attempt of the revenue to restrict the not countenance the attempt of the revenue to restrict the powers of the AAC or of the powers of the AAC or of the Appellate Tribunal: both of them have power to direct the appropriate authority to assess Appellate Tribunal: both

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source, from usance interest paid to the non-residents, under section 195(1). Page 13 of 20 I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Eximcorp India Private Limited. C. The assessee being responsible for paying to the non-resident usance

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source, from usance interest paid to the non-residents, under section 195(1). Page 13 of 20 I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Eximcorp India Private Limited. C. The assessee being responsible for paying to the non-resident usance