KRISHNA PRASAD POTNURI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Prasad Potnuri...............................................................…………………………………….…..Appellant (Prop. Calcutta South Transport Co.) 20, Phears Lance Bowbazar Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Afqpp 3888 Q] Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata....................................................…………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Das, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

section 40A(3) of the Act. ” 15 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Prasad Potnuri 5. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above referred case, to the facts of the case on hand, we hold that the disallowance in question made u/s 40A(3) is bad in law. Hence we delete the same 6. On the issue

ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. S. N. CONSTRUCTION, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. First we take up in I.T.A. No. 1117/Kol/2017 Ground nos. 1 to 3 in the assessee’s appeal are on the disallowance made on the ground that there is violation of provision of section

S. N. CONSTRUCTION,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. First we take up in I.T.A. No. 1117/Kol/2017 Ground nos. 1 to 3 in the assessee’s appeal are on the disallowance made on the ground that there is violation of provision of section

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

4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, where any payment in respect of any expenditure has to be made by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft in order that such expenditure may not be disallowed as a deduction under sub-section (3

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

4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, where any payment in respect of any expenditure has to be made by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft in order that such expenditure may not be disallowed as a deduction under sub-section (3

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

SHRI DALJIT SINGH ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No.769/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

disallowance is called for by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. ” 4. We apply the propositions

SPEED & MOVERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,BEHALA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz)

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (3) The ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing payments made in excess of Rs.20,000/- to a single person in a day in cash without considering the bill amount. 4

HARIDAS SOM,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 22(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy., Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 14/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 Haridas Som V/S. I.T.O. Ward 22(3), Kolkata Pan: Ajhps8867K (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 are on the same issue of disallowance of Rs.49,43,544/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act on account of "Operational Charges" paid in cash. The facts of the case are that the appellant is an authorized Book Maker of Royal Calcutta Turf Club for 'Horse Racing' and he is carrying on this business for the last two decades

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,23,88,960 u/s. 40A(3) and 40A(3A) of the Act on account of cash payment exceeding the prescribed limit. 3. The facts in brief as have been brought on record are that the assessee, a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of manufacturing of finished leather. During the course of assessment

M/S EXCEL ENGINEERS,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 51,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 40A(3) of the Act together with its amendments and decided judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that no disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. The Ground No. 4

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

3,10,71,000 Average thereof 1,55,35,500 ½% thereof 77,678 Hence I limit the disallowance to Rs.77,678 and the balance amount of disallowance is not sustained.” 33. Having heard both the parties on this issue, we do not subscribe to the reason given by the Ld. CIT(A) that since the assessee had strategic investment

RANJAN DEBNATH ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 9, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

4. The ld. DR on the other hand opposed the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that Section 40A(3) is not a disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, MINAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. SHRI JUGAL KISHORE DAS, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2010-11 D.C.I.T., Circle-2, -Versus- Shri Jugal Kishore Das Midnapore Paschim Medinipur (Pan: Adxpd 2305 B) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri David Z.Chawngthu, Addl. Cit(Sr.Dr) For The Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2017. Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Relating To A.Y. 2010-11 On The Following Grounds : “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Was Not Justified In Deleting Addition Aggregating To Rs 86,55,000/-, Made U/S 40A(3) On Account Of Cash Payments Of Rs 45,80,000/- To M/S United Spirits & Rs 40,75,000/- To M/S Vtr Marketing, ; 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Xxxvi, Kolkata Was Not Justified In Deleting Addition Of Rs 86,55,000/- U/S 40A(3), Ignoring Assessee'S Own Statement Recorded On Oath U/S 131 On 15/03/2013, That Payments Exceeding Rs 20,000/- Were Made In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Read With Rule-6Dd ; 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -Xxxvi, Kolkata Was Not Justified In Deleting Addition Of Rs 86,55,000/- U/S 40A(3), Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Substantiate His Claim That Payments Were Made In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Read With Rule-6Dd Due To Commercial Expediency ;”

section 40A(3) of the Act together with its amendments and decided judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that no disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. In view of the above discussion and on consideration

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

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

4) of the I.T Act, 1961 for his opinion:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 2 lakhs on ad hoc basis proposed by ld. JM or disallowance of expenses to 1% of the total exempted income proposed by ld.AM is justified under section 14A of the I.T Act, 1961.” 2. Hon’ble President

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MARUTI FREIGHT MOVERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 482/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We find that the revenue had erroneously mentioned the section 43B in its grounds of appeal instead of section 40A(3) of the Act and this was duly 2 I.T.A. No. 482/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/s. Maruti Freight Movers Ltd. pointed

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

disallowance of Rs. 50 lacs under section 35AC of the Act in respect of donation made to OP Jindal Kalyan Gramin Sansthan for the reason that the aforesaid 3 grounds were never considered and decided in the reassessment proceedings and the limitation will start from the original assessment order which was passed on 24.12.2009. 4

ACIT, CIR.-10(2), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

4 I.T.A. No. 2242/Kol/2016 Assessment Years 2010-11 M/s. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. assessment completed under section 147/143(3) of the Act. In the appeal filed against the order originally passed under section 143(3), the disallowance

MR. NIRMAL KUMAR DAS,MIDNAPORE vs. ACIT, CIR-HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Mr. Nirmal Kumar Das V/S. Acit, Circle-Haldia, W/H/A17, Durgachak Basudevpur, P.O. Housing Estate, P.O. Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Durgachak, Hldia, Purba Purba Medinipur, Pin – Medinipur, Pin. 721602 721602 [Pan No.Acupd 7343 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance could be made under section 40A(3) – Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour of the assessee]” CIT vs Smt. Shelly Passi reported in (2013) 350 ITR 227 (P&H) In this case the court upheld the view of the tribunal in not applying section 40A(3) of the Act to the cash payments when ultimately, such amounts were deposited