RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

36(1)(viia) of the Act by\napplying Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.\n11.\nGround Nos. 8 and 9 relate to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act\non account of non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act are as under:\n“40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue no. 1 to 4 are goes against

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue no. 1 to 4 are goes against

KAZI ZAINAL ABSAR,ASANSOL vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36,800/- for non deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia), for payments made against machine spare parts and maintenance, and the addition may please be deleted. 3) For that on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.6,76,500/- for non deduction

SHAIKH SAMIM,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

36,61,630/-. 3. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) where in the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made u/s 40A(ia) amounting to Rs. 66,65,885/- but allowed the appeal of the assessee with regard to claim U/s 10AA by giving direction to the AO to recompute