M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

disallowed in cases to which these provisions of the section apply. Sub-section (7) of section 40A was inserted by the Finance Act, 1975 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1973. It is necessary to appreciate the purpose and object intended to be achieved by this sub-section in order to arrive at the true meaning of the provision

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)

7 S.N. Construction A.Yrs.2011-12 device of evasion of tax is relevant consideration and which should be examined before invoking the rigours of section 40A(3) of the Act. 33. In case of Anupam Tele Services v. Income Tax Officer, the matter which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the facts of the case

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)

7 S.N. Construction A.Yrs.2011-12 device of evasion of tax is relevant consideration and which should be examined before invoking the rigours of section 40A(3) of the Act. 33. In case of Anupam Tele Services v. Income Tax Officer, the matter which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the facts of the case

DCIT, CIR-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RELIANCE JUTE MILLS INTERNATIONAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

b) that provision made by the assessee for the purpose of payment of any gratuity, that has become payable during the year is allowable which means that the liability which has actually accrued during the year is allowable. In fact the CBDT has also clarified the introduction of section 40A(7) that the provision made for payment of gratuity that

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

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

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

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

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)

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

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)

B) deposited operational charges by cash only. This practice has been changed from cash payment to cheque/DD payment effective from Financial Year 2015-16." 4.5 I have examined the assessment order, remand report as well as other documents submitted by the A/ R of the appellant. I am not in agreement with the view of the AIR of the appellant

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]

7 Excel Engineers, AY 2009-10 Prasanna Baishya 2,53,629 Maa Durga Stores 9,99,490 Jai Bhavani 10,15,867 ---------------- 54,66,572 The ld AO observed that the purchases were made from these parties by the assesese from different dates throughout the year. The assessee replied that these expenses were incurred in purchase of cement, sand, stones

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 ;”

7 Anupam Teleservices vs ITO reported in (2014) 43 taxmann.com 199 (Guj) “"Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 600 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962-Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limits (Rule 6DD(j)-Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessee was working as an agent of Tata Tele Services Limited for distributing mobile cards

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

section 40A(3) requiring payment by A/c payee Cheque or Draft. Conclusion; From the aforesaid facts it can be ascertained that the appellant has not acted deliberately in defiance of law or laid down rules and payments have been made through local agents in compliance with the rule 600 and payment of commission to agents is included in gross trucks

M/S. AIC IRON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-1, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1332/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pcit-1, Kolkata 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn0217F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Respondent By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Kolkata Dated 12.03.2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Relevant Facts Involved In The Instant Lis Are In A Very Narrow Compass. The Assessing Officer Has Framed His Regular Assessment In Issue Dated 19.12.16 Disallowing Administrative Expenditure Of Rs.46,420/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) R.W. Section 14A Of The Act. The Pcit Assumed His Revision Jurisdiction Terming The Above Regular Assessment As Erroneous Causing Prejudice To Interest Of The Revenue Since There Were ‘Large Specific Domestic Transactions” & The Assessing Officer Had Completed His Assessment Without Making Any Reference To The Tpo To Determine Arm’S Length Price Thereof. He Quotes Cbdt Instruction No.3/2016 Dated 10.03.16 Regarding Guidelines For Implementation Of Transfer Pricing

7, the assessee has objected to Ld. Pr. CIT's finding with reference to reasons set out in Clause 3(b) of the SCN which read as follows: "One of the reasons for selection of scrutiny was mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A (2) (b) reported in Audit report (Form 3CEB) and ITR. However, the case

ITO, WD-2(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. M/S KAJORA PACHAI & C. S. SHOP, BURDWAN

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-2(3), Durgapur -Vs- M/S Kajora Pachai & C.S. Shop [Pan: Aagfk 2341 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

b) The identity of the receiver (wholesale licensee) is established beyond doubt. (c) The payment is made in the bank account of the seller (wholesale licensee). We hold that since the genuinity of the payments made to the M/s Asansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Pvt. Ltd (wholesale licensee) is not doubted by the revenue, the provisions of section 40A(3) could

KRITIKA WIRES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-2, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

7, the assessee has objected to Ld. Pr. CIT's finding with reference to reasons set out in Clause 3(b) of the SCN which read as follows: "One of the reasons for selection of scrutiny was mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A (2) (b) reported in Audit report (Form 3CEB) and ITR. However, the case

SRI MALAY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

7 (d) The act as introduced in 1968 read with rules 6DD requires to exempt the provision of section 40A(3) if cash payment is due to genuine difficulty and the evidence thereof is produced at the time of assessment. This rule 6DDj was incorporated in act itself by Finance Act 2007 by using the word “considerations of business expendiency

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

7. Large value sale of consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property reported in TDS return under section 194IA 8. Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR 9. Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR 4. After conducting enquiries with reference

SHRI PRABIR KUMAR MULLICK,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 Prabir Kumar Mullick V/S. Income Tax Officer, Searsol C.S.Shop, Ward-3(1), G.T. Road Shisubagan (Kalali Gali) (West), Asansol Ranigunj (Burdwan) [Pan No.Ajepm 7142 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

b) read with 6DD(k) was not considered as adjudicated upon by ITAT. (ii) In similar type of case, the Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Kalyan Pd. Gupta (reported in 239 CTR-(Raj) 447 was not available before ITAT in Ruspalata’s case. (copy at page 19 of last paper book.) (c) The interpretation of Law & effect of “comma

BHAGYA LAKHI ROY (PROP), BIJOY NARAYAN ROY (DECD),BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09

7 of section 40A(3). In our view this issue needs to be adjudicated from different dimensions as enumerated below : 1) What were the provisions of section 40A(3) then applicable for the assessment year 2008-09. 2) The purpose of introduction of the section 40A(3) in the Income Tax Act. 3) Case laws of various courts. The provisions