RADHAKRISHNA AGRO PRODUCTS,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), BURDWAN. , BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 40A(3), it was pointed out from the ledger of Universal Engineers that payments have been made by cheque. Only a sum of Rs.10,081/- was paid in cash out of the total amount, therefore no disallowance is warranted u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. 7.1. We have gone through the record and accordingly delete the disallowance so made

NARAYAN CHANDRA JANA,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 27(3), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowed by the AO u/s. 40A(3) of the Act to the tune of Rs.87,30,994/-. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition solely on the ground that M/s. Khadim India Ltd. is located in the prime location of Kolkata city and, therefore, the payments made were in complete violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. 10. After hearing

M/S. GUNNY DEALERS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TECH-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S Gunny Dealers Ltd…………………....................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcg0019R] Vs. Ito, Tech-1, Kolkata………….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Haye Considered That The Order U/S 143(3) Was Passed By An Authority Who Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Appellant & As Such, The Said Order Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of

section 40A(3) of the Act, disallowed the entire cash purchases and added back the same to the income of the assessee. 5

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

section 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-.\n18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY\n2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the\nfinding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed.\n19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

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 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-.\n18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY\n2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the\nfinding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed.\n19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

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 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-.\n18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY\n2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the\nfinding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed.\n19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

5 I.T.A. No.312/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mega Engineers & Builders 9. The undisputed facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm and the vehicle was purchased in the name of one of the partners which is permissible under the Indian Partnership Act. We also note that the assessee has borrowed money from the bank in its name

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

5% of excess depreciation claimed by treating these as\nfurniture and fixture instead of plant and machinery on which\ndepreciation @ 10% is applicable. The Ld. CIT(A) treated these as plants\nby relying upon the decisions in CIT v Subrata Dutta Choudhary [2011]\n197 taxman 71 (P&H), HSBC Electronic Data Processing (I) (P.) Ltd. 36\ntaxmann.com 388 (Hyd. Bench

MR. SIDHARTHA SURANA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 36(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1237/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 40A(3) of the Act was made. 5. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the Sidhartha Surana disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5 in revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. Issue raised in ground no. 2 by the assessee is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 7,28,07,989/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO for non- deduction of tax at source u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 7. Facts in brief are that

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5 in revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. Issue raised in ground no. 2 by the assessee is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 7,28,07,989/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO for non- deduction of tax at source u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 7. Facts in brief are that

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5 in revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. Issue raised in ground no. 2 by the assessee is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 7,28,07,989/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO for non- deduction of tax at source u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 7. Facts in brief are that

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5 in revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. Issue raised in ground no. 2 by the assessee is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 7,28,07,989/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO for non- deduction of tax at source u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 7. Facts in brief are that

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed

BARIK BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed