SRI GOPINATH GHORAI,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 01/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2005-06

reassessment order dated 24/12/2010 not from the date of original assessment. The appellant contended that order passed under section 143(3) dated 18.12.2007 steps into the shoes of the order under section under section 5 Gopinath Ghorai A.Yr.2005-06 143(3) read with section 147 dated 24.12.2007 and the time limit starts for making rectification under section 154 commenced

D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of 'change of opinion' as an in-built test to check abuse of power

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INTRASTRACTURE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

194C of the Act. The issue raised by the AO that the assessee is not doing the development work but is only doing the works contract so is not eligible to deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act is not legally sustainable, as the assessee admittedly is developing the roads and railway lines thereof. Development encompasses within its contract work

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INFRASTRACTURE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

194C of the Act. The issue raised by the AO that the assessee is not doing the development work but is only doing the works contract so is not eligible to deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act is not legally sustainable, as the assessee admittedly is developing the roads and railway lines thereof. Development encompasses within its contract work

M/S. ANUBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA - 5, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

reassessment order dated 02.11.2018 which was framed while giving effect to the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT which is found placed at pages 65 to 73 of the Paper Book. According to the Ld. AR, a perusal of the same would reveal that the AO after enquiry has not drawn any adverse inference against the purported introduction

M/S ANUBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

reassessment order dated 02.11.2018 which was framed while giving effect to the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT which is found placed at pages 65 to 73 of the Paper Book. According to the Ld. AR, a perusal of the same would reveal that the AO after enquiry has not drawn any adverse inference against the purported introduction

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SATYANARAYAN PANDEY, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

reassessment proceedings. However, we note that assessee has claimed to file form No. 15I in the regular assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has not deducted the TDS u/s 194C

DCIT, CIR-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Kolkata........................………..…..........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Jute Corporation Of India Ltd...................................................…………...................Respondent 15N, Hudco Building Nellie Sengupta Sarani Kolkata – 700 087 [Pan : Aabct 8820 B] Appearances By: Shri Biswajit Syam, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri T.P. Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 16Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 8Th, 2021 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-, Kz :- This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 26/08/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’).

194C of the Act from the payments aggregating to Rs.10,60,90,375/- made during the year under consideration which required disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee on 07/12/2012. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the following explanation was offered on behalf

ITO, WARD-1(4), BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. SHRI BISHNU GHOSH, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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]

reassessment for examining the disallowability of labour charges of Rs.45,76,900/- and job work charges of Rs.23,27,800/- as there was delay in payment of TDS amount of Rs.77,802/-. The AO pursuant to the order of the Ld. CIT completed the re-assessment vide order dated 31.01.2014 and was pleased to disallow labour charges of Rs.45

DIPAK KUMAR DASBHOWMIK,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), MIDNAPORE , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

reassessment proceedings are held to be valid and the Ground no. 2 of the appeal is therefore dismissed”. 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the addition of Rs.8,80,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 8 to 8.2 of his impugned order

D.C.I.T CIR - 3 ,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ABHIYAN CARGO PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT-A deleted the said addition and found that there was no violation of Sec 194C of the Act in view of the fact that all the details relating to lorry hire charges paid to various drivers did not exceed Rs.20,000/- evidencing the same relevant vouchers were available and same were

RISING RETAILS(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

section 143(2) of the Act during the reassessment proceedings.” 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Ld. AO found that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.24,01,69,671/- towards contract expense which include an amount of Rs.24,00,84,000/- paid to M/s. Sarda Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. issued letter

I.T.O WD - 2(2),BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. NATRAJ UNEMPLOYED ENGINEERS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BURDWAN

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

reassessment proceedings U/s 147/148 of the Act,theassessee had explained that the issue was addressed by way of a reconciliation which was not considered by the Ld. AO. Further, the Ld. AO conceived that the expenses incurred on account of labour charges had infringed the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction

A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-51, KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA ENGINEERING, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s CO is also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

194C of the Act but assessee has defaulted in deducting the TDS ITA No.2442 & CO 141/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 ACIT Cir-51 Kol. vs. M/s Maa Engineering Page 3 on the aforesaid amount. Accordingly, AO has disallowed the aforesaid expense u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of assessee. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred

BMEL INFRA INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 385/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bmel Infra India Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T.-3, Kolkata Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccb 6325 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Vigyaneshwar Nath Datta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Bani Brata Dutta, Addl. Cit.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2015 Of C.I.T.(A)-Kolkata-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

194C of the Act : “Expenditure to the tune of Rs.97,42,692/- towards Freight, Rs.39,52,2465/- towards loading and unloading and Rs.47,76,501/- towards clearing and forwarding charges respectively.” 6. In response to the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act the assessee pointed out that the original order of assessment

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

194C 194J Rs.5,45,692/- (ii) u/s 37(1) on account of inadmissible donation Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 5,66,522/- Total Income from Business Rs.3,63,56,869/- Less: Brought forward business loss set off Rs.43,91,870/- Less: Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation Set off Rs.2,47,02,614/- Less: Brought forward depreciation set off To the tune