DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowed on non-deduction of TDS, it is necessary to revisit the relevant provisions of the Act - Sections 5, 9, 195 and 40(a)(i). While Section 5 deals with scope of total income, Section 9 is about income deemed to accrue or arise in India. Further, retracing from Section 9(1

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

1,72,38,405/- made to non-resident. In view of the above, the said payment of Rs.1,72,38,40S/- is not admissible and disallowed u/s. 40(a) of the I.T. Act. The A/R of the appellant in his submission has submitted that the disallowance of Rs.1,72,38,405/- being commission paid to non-residents, when no services

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 ]

40(a)(i) of the Act deals with interest and other sums payable outside India. The provisions of this sub-clause made applicable to interest have been extended to payment of royalty, technical fees and any other sum chargeable under this Act. The section provides that the sums covered by the sub-clause, which are chargeable under

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 ]

40(a)(i) of the Act deals with interest and other sums payable outside India. The provisions of this sub-clause made applicable to interest have been extended to payment of royalty, technical fees and any other sum chargeable under this Act. The section provides that the sums covered by the sub-clause, which are chargeable under

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

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

disallowed by the AO for non-deduction of TDS in terms of section 194C read with section to 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The details of the expenses can be summarized in the following manner : Sl. No. Name of party Amount paid 1

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

disallowance as made for violation of section 194C and the addition therein by invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not maintainable and, therefore, the impugned amount to an extent of Rs.1,13,700/- on account of Instrument Hire Charges is deleted and ground no-4 is allowed. 14. Ground no-5 relates to the payments to Artists

ACIT, CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ASHOKE PRASAD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 582/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata -Vs- Ashoke Prasad. [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ashoke Prasad -Vs- Dcit, Circle-49, Kolkata [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

40(a)(ia) of the Act is to be read with section 201(1) of the Act and its second proviso thereon wherein it just stipulates ‘return filed u/s 139’ of the Act which apparently includes return filed u/s 139(4) and 139(5) of the Act. Hence we hold that no disallowance

SHREE ASHOKE PRASAD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 582/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata -Vs- Ashoke Prasad. [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ashoke Prasad -Vs- Dcit, Circle-49, Kolkata [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

40(a)(ia) of the Act is to be read with section 201(1) of the Act and its second proviso thereon wherein it just stipulates ‘return filed u/s 139’ of the Act which apparently includes return filed u/s 139(4) and 139(5) of the Act. Hence we hold that no disallowance

SOMA RANI GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act. 34. From our above discussion it follows that,- i) in the context of Section 194C(1

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.

disallowed the payment made towards these funds by relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by taking note of the relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by taking note of the relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by taking note of the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case

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

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

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 ]

1)(vii)(b) explanation (2), therefore, no TDS was deductible on such foreign remittance and therefore, disallowance under section -; 40

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

1) r/w second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As opined by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi supra that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature having retrospective effect from 01-04-2005 and the case on hand being for A.Y 2005-06, in our view, the matter

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

disallowable item, interest thereon could not be allowed and that the interest was in the nature of penalty for infraction of law and hence inadmissible. The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, in that case had upheld the finding of the assessing officer. The Hon'ble High Court held that whenever interest is charged under

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

40,89,253/-, being 90% of the actual disallowance made by the AO of Rs.45,43,615/- under Repairs and Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such disallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed. 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

40,89,253/-, being 90% of the actual disallowance made by the AO of Rs.45,43,615/- under Repairs and Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such disallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed. 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred