ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD- KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARTAJ SEWA SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

disallowed the\npayment made to SCPL by the assessee. Shri Hartaj Sewa Singh, to the tune of\nRs.80,43,964/-.\nA notice u/s 201(1) of the Act was accordingly issued to the assessee in\nview of non-deduction of tax at source.\n6. The Ld. AO held the assessee in default as per section 201(1) of\nthe

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) “professional services” shall have the same mean­ing as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) “work” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III* to section 194C; [(v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) “royalty

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9;\n(iii) “professional services” shall have the same mean-ing as in clause (a) of\nthe Explanation to section 194J;\n(iv) “work” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III* to section\n194C;\n[(v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation\nto section

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]

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

9 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 Graphite India Limited Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction

BINAYAK IMAGINE & DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

vii) Vascular Angiography system including Digital subtraction Angiography viii) Ventilator used with annaesthesia apparatus ix) Magnetic Resonance Imaging System x) Surgical Laser xi) Ventilators other than those used with anesthesia xii) Gamma Knife xiii) Bone marrow transplant equipment including silasticlogn standing intravenous catheters for chemotherapy 4 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. xiv) Fibreoptic endoscopes

URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

VII. FOR THAT the Assessment Unit wrongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal by deeming the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated July 31, 2022 as notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court

PRAMOD LAKRA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

VII. FOR THAT the Assessment Unit wrongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal by deeming the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated July 31, 2022 as notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD- KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARTAJ SEWA SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the payment made to SCPL by the assessee. Shri Hartaj Sewa Singh, to the tune of Rs.80,43,964/-. A notice u/s 201(1) of the Act was accordingly issued to the assessee in view of non-deduction of tax at source. 6. The Ld. AO held the assessee in default as per section 201(1

M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

9] If the department cannot, after issuing a notice under section 143(2) for regular assessment, resort to the summary procedure under section 143(1)(a), can it be said that the rectification of an intimation issued under the aforesaid section is also not permissible because in either case it would amount to activating section 143(1)(a) which according

I.T.O.(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CAMELLIA EDUCARE TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

vii) Status - AOP/BOI (viii) Sub-status given - Public Charitable Trust (ix) Aggregate annual receipts - Rs. 0/-. 3.2. In respect of details pertaining to ‘Forms’ it is stated as ‘No forms filed’. It is claimed that Form 10B was filed electronically by the assessee on 30.03.2021, copy of which is placed in the paper book. On the computation of total income

M/S KOHINOOR STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

disallowances made by Learned Assessing Officer is wrong in the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition of Rs. 83750000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act while treating the same as assessee’s own money. 3. That

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowance and claim of deduction under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Along with the Tax Audit Report, GRUH had submitted audited accounts. In notes on account attached to the Balance Sheet, it has been stated that GRUH has issued / allotted equity shares to its employees and 4 M/s Bandhan Bank Limited: AY: 2016-17 directors under ESOS

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

vii). The ld AO should have appreciated that income from those investments had always been shown under the head "Business income" and, therefore, the requirement of section 36(2) should have been considered as having been fulfilled by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that in respect of the Assessment Year 2002-03 (Ground No. 1

MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

9] If the department cannot, after issuing a notice under section 143(2) for regular assessment, resort to the summary procedure under section 143(1)(a), can it be said that the rectification of an intimation issued under the aforesaid section is also not permissible because in either case it would amount to activating section 143(1)(a) which according

INFOSOFT GLOBAL P LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

9] If the department cannot, after issuing a notice under section 143(2) for regular assessment, resort to the summary procedure under section 143(1)(a), can it be said that the rectification of an intimation issued under the aforesaid section is also not permissible because in either case it would amount to activating section 143(1)(a) which according

EREVMAX TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., TP-1, , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us In The Paper Book)

9,73,70,939/- for the year under consideration. 1.1 In this case, the assessee provides tourism related software services to one Erevmax Inc. of USA, which is the AE. As per a service agreement between the assessee and the AE (duly placed before us in the paper book), 2 Erevmax Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the assessee bills

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

9. Now, from perusal of the explanation to sub-Section (2) of Section 92B, the expression international transaction includes capital financing, include any type of long-term or short-term borrowings, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business. Since inclusive