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

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income ITA No.1354/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 DCIT

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 ]

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

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 ]

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

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)

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(viia) of the Act by applying Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 11. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 relate to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are as under: “40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections

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

XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHATOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

XVII-B and 9 ITA No. 2006/Kol/2017 A.Y 2011-12 Sri Subhatosh Majumder such tax has not been deducted. Accordingly, the assessee cannot be faulted for not deducting TDS and consequently, the deletion of disallowance by CIT(A) is confirmed. This common issue of all the three appeals of revenue is dismissed.” 14. From the foregoing findings of the Tribunal

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

XVII B of the Act, then for the purposes of deduction of tax under those provisions such income shall be increased to such amount as would, after deduction of tax thereon at the rates in force for the financial year in which such income is payable, be equal to the net amount payable under such agreement or arrangement

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

XVII B of the Act, then for the purposes of deduction of tax under those provisions such income shall be increased to such amount as would, after deduction of tax thereon at the rates in force for the financial year in which such income is payable, be equal to the net amount payable under such agreement or arrangement

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

36,097/- was disallowed. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in para 10, 11 and 12 as under: “10. The appellant also filed complete list of remittances made to foreign associates, filed copies of some of the invoices raised upon the appellant by such foreign associates as also

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

36,097/- was disallowed. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in para 10, 11 and 12 as under: “10. The appellant also filed complete list of remittances made to foreign associates, filed copies of some of the invoices raised upon the appellant by such foreign associates as also

DCIT,CIRCLE-52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDER . S. JAMUMBDER &CO,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

36,097/- was disallowed. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in para 10, 11 and 12 as under: “10. The appellant also filed complete list of remittances made to foreign associates, filed copies of some of the invoices raised upon the appellant by such foreign associates as also

ITO, WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHOK TRADING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shrin.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

36,000/- The aforesaid impugned amount were disallowed u/s 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 and added to the total income of assessee under normal provision of the Act as well as under the provision of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). 52. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of Assessing Officer

M/S MCC PTA INDIA CORPN. PVT. LTD.,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-59, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

36:- 1. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that wharfage charges paid by the appellant to Kolkata Port Trust was in the nature of rental payments made for usage of land and tax was required to be deducted at source on such payment. The said finding is without any basis and illegal. 2. For that

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

xvii)Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Similarly the assessee paid the commission to Pardip Kumar Agarwal (HUF) for the sales made to the following parties:- “i) Pradip Kr. Agarwal (HUF) Similarly the assessee paid the commission to India Steel for the sales made to the following parties:- “The bills of India Steels claims commissions in respect of sales made