KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

section 12A(2) of the Act cannot be held to be retrospective in nature and hence cannot be applied for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The ld AR argued that the issue under dispute is already settled by the following decisions of the co-ordinate benches of various tribunals :- A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 a) Decision

DREAMLAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 489-495/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2011-12

68,663 19,41,731 28,93,178 48,34,909 2007-08 60,61,940 38,707 61,00,647 20,53,477 25,66,849 46,20,326 2008-09 84,14,230 47,320 84,61,550 28,76,080 29,04,842 57,80,921 2009-10 1,31,18,906 14,156 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

68,525/- on account of Disputed Interest u/s 234A c. Rs 13,34,79,675/-on account of Disputed Interest u/s 234B d. Rs. 3,04,32,052/-on account of Disputed Interest u/s 234C” 3. Although the assessee has taken 20 grounds of appeal, however, the main grievance of the assessee is that the addition made in the intimation

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

68[ 2011];] 69[ 69a [(vi ) any undertaking carrying on the business of laying and operating a cross-country natural gas distribution network, including pipelines and storage facilities being an integral part of such network, which fulfils the following conditions, namely:— (a ) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as per the discussion supra

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

Section 12AA(3) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2004. 8. We hold that the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court would squarely be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Infact the assessee’s case herein falls on a much better footing than the facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as per the discussion supra

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

Section 12AA(3) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2004. 8. We hold that the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court would squarely be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Infact the assessee’s case herein falls on a much better footing than the facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court

ANJANA CHAUDHURY,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIR. (1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

12A) of the Act exist or not. Since there is no finding of fact in this regard, we deem it fit to remand back this matter to the file of ld. AO with a direction to examine whether the provisions of Section 68 of the Act would apply, especially with regard to any books that

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 11(4A) of the Act has to be considered in the context of difference between property held in favour of assessee-trust and profit arisen to assessee-trust out of business. This Sec. 11(4A) of the Act is not applicable in the instant case as the property is held in assessee-trust. The GA was always

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

68,550/- on 8.3.2010 and Rs 1,00,000/- during financial year 2010-11 totalling to Rs 2,87,420/- . He observed that as per the Act, tax is to be deducted on the date on which the bill is raised or payment is made whichever is earlier. Accordingly he observed that the TDS was to be made

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

68,550/- on 8.3.2010 and Rs 1,00,000/- during financial year 2010-11 totalling to Rs 2,87,420/- . He observed that as per the Act, tax is to be deducted on the date on which the bill is raised or payment is made whichever is earlier. Accordingly he observed that the TDS was to be made

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

68,550/- on 8.3.2010 and Rs 1,00,000/- during financial year 2010-11 totalling to Rs 2,87,420/- . He observed that as per the Act, tax is to be deducted on the date on which the bill is raised or payment is made whichever is earlier. Accordingly he observed that the TDS was to be made

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

68,550/- on 8.3.2010 and Rs 1,00,000/- during financial year 2010-11 totalling to Rs 2,87,420/- . He observed that as per the Act, tax is to be deducted on the date on which the bill is raised or payment is made whichever is earlier. Accordingly he observed that the TDS was to be made

DCIT(E),CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

68,550/- on 8.3.2010 and Rs 1,00,000/- during financial year 2010-11 totalling to Rs 2,87,420/- . He observed that as per the Act, tax is to be deducted on the date on which the bill is raised or payment is made whichever is earlier. Accordingly he observed that the TDS was to be made

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. ITO(TDS), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

68,550/- on 8.3.2010 and Rs 1,00,000/- during financial year 2010-11 totalling to Rs 2,87,420/- . He observed that as per the Act, tax is to be deducted on the date on which the bill is raised or payment is made whichever is earlier. Accordingly he observed that the TDS was to be made

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

68,550/- on 8.3.2010 and Rs 1,00,000/- during financial year 2010-11 totalling to Rs 2,87,420/- . He observed that as per the Act, tax is to be deducted on the date on which the bill is raised or payment is made whichever is earlier. Accordingly he observed that the TDS was to be made

M/S. DELIGHTED HOLDINGS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIR, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 68, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises; the appeals are accordingly dismissed" 8. Applying the proposition of law laid down in the case law to the facts of the case, we delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act for the reasons cited above.” 12. Under identical circumstances, similar view was taken

SUPER IRON FOUNDRY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 36, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

68 of the Act. Fortunately, for the assessee, CIT(A) has done an elaborate factual exercise, took into consideration, the creditworthiness of the 13 companies the details of which were furnished by the assessee. More importantly, the CIT noted that all these companies responded to the notices issued under Section 133 (6) of the Act which fact

DCIT EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA vs. B P PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.637/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year. : 2022-2023) Dcit Exemptions Circle-1(1), Vs B P Poddar Foundation For Education, Kolkata 18, Poddar Court, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aaatb 5418 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiayn, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.12.2024, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai For A.Y.2022- 2023. 2. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 26 Days For Which The Revenue Has Filed The Necessary Condonation Petition. The Reasons Given Are Plausible & Same Are Accepted. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Ar Has Filed His Written Submission Which Read As Under :- Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "A" Bench. Kolkata.

68,46,390/- was raised on the Appellant Trust. Copy of the Response of the Assesee Trust along with the Intimation u/s 143(1) dated 04/04/2023 is enclosed as under: "Annexure E: Response of Appellant Trust" - Pg 52 "Annexure F: Intimation u/s 143(1) dated 04/04/2023 for the A.Y.2022-23."-Pgs 53 -62 2.3. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after