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

3)/144 without making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) when the books of account of the assessee were rejected and the income of the assessee was determined on the estimated basis was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as alleged by the ld. CIT and the revision of the same by him under section

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.

3. For that the order under section 263 of the Act is time barred in so far as the directions of the CIT in respect of adoption of sale price of ROM as per the M.B. Shah Commission Report, disallowance of depreciation on assets purchased from SLML Sarda AOP and disallowance of Rs. 50

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)

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Learned AO relying on all these facts sought to disallow a sum of Rs. 60,50

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 194C of the Act warranting disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld AO is directed to delete this disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 68,49,395/-. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. The ld AR during the course of hearing stated that

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]

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Learned AO relying on all these facts sought to disallow a sum of Rs. 60,50

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

3) of section 14A, there is no question of disallowing the amounts invoking Rule8D. Therefore, the CIT(A)’s direction on this is set aside and the additions so made by the A.O. in the computation of business income is deleted. Ground is considered allowed.” 5.4 Similarly in case of Auchtel Products Ltd (supra), it was held by this Tribunal

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

50 of the Act and, therefore, the Long Term Capital Loss could not be set off against the same. The Assessing Officer also made further disallowances under sections 14A and 40(a)(ia) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,35,48,59,800/- in the assessment completed under section 143(3

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]

50,000) is a strategic one . Therefore, other investments made apart from this investment are perhaps not strategic and hence provisions of Section 14A ought to be applied. Further, from the Audited Statement of accounts it is evident that the self-owned funds of the assessee company are in excess of Rs. 35 crores whereas the investments

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)

disallowance was deleted by the ld CITA in first appeal. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Durgapur has erred on fact and law by holding that cash payment to M/s IFB Agro Industries Ltd., Panagarh is not a violation of Section 40A(3

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

3,51,52,181/- after adjusting the disallowance already made by the assessee for ₹29,20,022/- and added to the total income of assessee. 13. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. DRP. The assessee before Ld. DRP submitted that the provision of Section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 has been invoked without recording the satisfaction

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

3) of section 14A, there is no question of disallowing the amounts invoking Rule8D. Therefore, the CIT(A)’s direction on this is set aside and the additions so made by the A.O. in the computation of business income is deleted. Ground is considered allowed.” ITA No.2652/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Lebong Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kol. Page

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowed, then effectively the ld AO would be taxing the entire sale proceeds as income of the assessee which would only result in an anomalous situation. He further argued that the law cannot be interpreted in such a manner as it would result in creating absurdity if section 40A(3) is invoked in a strict sense. The assessee

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowed, then effectively the ld AO would be taxing the entire sale proceeds as income of the assessee which would only result in an anomalous situation. He further argued that the law cannot be interpreted in such a manner as it would result in creating absurdity if section 40A(3) is invoked in a strict sense. The assessee

M/S. RAMNAGAR PACHAI & C.S. (S) SHOP vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowed, then effectively the ld AO would be taxing the entire sale proceeds as income of the assessee which would only result in an anomalous situation. He further argued that the law cannot be interpreted in such a manner as it would result in creating absurdity if section 40A(3) is invoked in a strict sense. The assessee

ITO, WARD - 2(2), ASANSOL , ASANSOL vs. NABA KUMAR MANDAL, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section 40A(3) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance and allowed the assessee’s ground of appeal by following the decision in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 164/Kol/2014 for AY 2010-11 dated 12.08.2016. We find that the identical issue with regard to the disallowance u/s. 40A(3

MOTOR CH. MONDAL,ASANSOL vs. ITO, WD-2(2), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 200/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Motor Ch. Mondal -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-2(2) Sahid Khudi Ram Sarani Asansol Neamatpur, P.O.Sitarampur-713359 [Pan : Afapm 9913K] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri.Rajat Kumar Kureel(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Another sum of Rs.2,18,000/- paid directly to the seller parties by cash. Invoking the provisions of Sec.40A(3) of the Act, the said sum was also disallowed and added to the total income of the Assessee. Thus in all a sum of Rs.82,70,180/- was disallowed

NABA KUMAR MONDAL,ASANSOL vs. ITO, WD-2(2), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The action of the AO was confirmed by CIT(A). 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. None appeared on behalf of the revenue

SMT BIMALA BALA MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A No. 794/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Bimala Bala Mondal -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1(4) Burdwan Durgapur [Pan : Aeapm 9753 N] ] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri.Ambitab Bhattacharya Jcit Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2016. Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 5.2.2014 Of Cit(A)- Durgapur, Relating To Ay 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is A Dealer In Country Spirits. Purchases Are Made From A Single Party Namely Ifb Agro Industries Ltd.. The Assessee In Respect Of Purchases From Ifb Agro Industries Ltd. Made A Payment Of Rs.14,31,840/- In Cash. According To The Ao The Above Payment Made Cannot Be Allowed As Deduction In Computing The Total Income Of The Assessee Because Of The Violation Of The Provision Of Section 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The Action Of The Ao Was Confirmed By Cit(A). 3. Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) The Assessee Has Preferred An Appeal Before This Tribunal. 4. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Asseseee Nor Was Any Request For Adjournment Made. I Have Heard The Submissions Of The Ld. Dr. Identical Issue With Regard To The Disallowance U/S 40A(3) Of The Act In The Case Of Assessee Who Are Engaged In The Business Of Country Spirits Who Have Paid Purchases In Cash Had Come Up For Consideration Before This Bench In The Case Of Ramnagar Pachwai & C.S. (Shop) Vs Ito Vide Ita No.148/Kol/2015 & 185&186/Kol/2014 For A.Y.2007-08 & 2008-09

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The action of the AO was confirmed by CIT(A). 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the asseseee nor was any request for adjournment made. I have heard the submissions