TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

u/s No. INR off) appeal was filed 1 Q1 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,23,088 33,447 2,56,540 2,56,540 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034548 989 2 Q2 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,69,015 32,198 3,01,210 3,01,210 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 022 3 Q3 2018 154 TDS/1819

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

u/s No. INR off) appeal was filed 1 Q1 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,23,088 33,447 2,56,540 2,56,540 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034548 989 2 Q2 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,69,015 32,198 3,01,210 3,01,210 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 022 3 Q3 2018 154 TDS/1819

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

u/s No. INR off) appeal was filed 1 Q1 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,23,088 33,447 2,56,540 2,56,540 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034548 989 2 Q2 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,69,015 32,198 3,01,210 3,01,210 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 022 3 Q3 2018 154 TDS/1819

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

u/s No. INR off) appeal was filed 1 Q1 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,23,088 33,447 2,56,540 2,56,540 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034548 989 2 Q2 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,69,015 32,198 3,01,210 3,01,210 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 022 3 Q3 2018 154 TDS/1819

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

u/s No. INR off) appeal was filed 1 Q1 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,23,088 33,447 2,56,540 2,56,540 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034548 989 2 Q2 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,69,015 32,198 3,01,210 3,01,210 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 022 3 Q3 2018 154 TDS/1819

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

u/s No. INR off) appeal was filed 1 Q1 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,23,088 33,447 2,56,540 2,56,540 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034548 989 2 Q2 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,69,015 32,198 3,01,210 3,01,210 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 022 3 Q3 2018 154 TDS/1819

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

u/s No. INR off) appeal was filed 1 Q1 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,23,088 33,447 2,56,540 2,56,540 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034548 989 2 Q2 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,69,015 32,198 3,01,210 3,01,210 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 022 3 Q3 2018 154 TDS/1819

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

201 ITR (St.) 23 (SC); 10) CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465, 470 (Cal.) 11) Cf. Nizam Wool Agency -vs.- CIT (1992) 193 ITR 318, 320 (All). In the light of the ratio of the decisions as discussed earlier in the cases of following judicial pronouncements vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances in the instant

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

u/s 143(1) passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. After considering the rectification order passed by the A.O., CPC, Bengaluru, the TDS of Rs. 19,15,979/- was not allowed by the A.O., CPC since the data of TDS deducted by M/s Cox and King Limited was not fully available

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

section 201(1A) of the Act, and not appreciating that the said interest levy is of compensatory nature and not a penalty for infringement of law. 7. Disallowance of fines paid for late filing of VAT & CST return 7.1 That on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in law in by disallowing

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under in the Statement of Facts filed with the appeal memo: The appellant has been in the business of carrying out High Technology Construction Activities. In pursuance of agreements entered into with the Government

ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DREAMZ LIFE CARE NURSING & DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is also initiated on this score for concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income. Commission: In this year the assessee has shown commission paid of Rs.600000/-. In course of hearing the assessee furnished name and address of the two persons Prasun Mukherjee & Soumya Ghosh

ITO, WARD - 3(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAMZ MOVIES & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is also initiated on this score for concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income. Commission: In this year the assessee has shown commission paid of Rs.600000/-. In course of hearing the assessee furnished name and address of the two persons Prasun Mukherjee & Soumya Ghosh

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment of income/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, amplify or modify any or all of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without