ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

68 of the Act in the absence of creditworthiness of these parties and made addition. We find no reason to sustain the same, as the very basis is not doubted by the AO, and assessee has discharged its onus by filing all the details before the AO. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of revenue

ITO, WD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ito(E), Wd-1(3), Kolkata Vs. The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen 6Th Floor, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata Iif Center, 335, Rajdanga Main – 700 071. Road, East Kolkata Township, P.O. Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt 6606 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

194A [Interest other than ‘interest on securities’] and, u/s 194C [payments to contractors]. We note that the difference arises because of timing of the transactions, which is the common issue in TDS matters. The relevant comparative facts and figures are given below: As per form 26AS As per assessee Difference Income 3

SRI HARTAJ SEWA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

v. CIT reported in 87 taxmann 108 (Bom). However on perusal of the same, we find that the facts of the case are different with the case on hand. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was based on the expenses incurred by the assessee over and above the lease consideration by way of making payment

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAMPION COMMERCIAL CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Champion P-7, Chowringhee Commercial Co. Ltd., Square, 3Rd Floor, P-15, Cit Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-73 [Pan No.Aabcc 2373 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “I. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,50,938/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Overrule The Judicial Pronouncement Of Cit Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited (1951) (191) Itr (Sc) Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.13,91,404/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The It Act, 1961. Iii. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.20,25,329/- On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The

v. That on the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,33,789/- on a wrong appreciation of facts ignoring the provisions laid down in section 195 in the I Act, 1961 w.r.t. 194A. vi. That on the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

M/S STANDARD FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.7(2), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

68,080/- was added to the income of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) simply upheld the order of the AO. 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that in this case the interest payments have been made to the broker for delayed payments of amounts due to the broker

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SMT. CHAMPA NANDI, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Acit, Circle-25, Kolkata Vs. Smt. Champa Nandi 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Flat No.Ud-0606, Udita Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata – 700 068. Complex, 1050/1, Survey Park, E.M. Byepass, Kolkata – 700 075. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abqpn 6470 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

68,40,472/- under the head interest and finance charges. On perusal of the same it was noted by assessing officer that the following amounts were payable/paid to different non-banking financial companies and no tax has been deducted at source under section 194A of the Act: Sl. No. Name of Lenders & address Interest amounts (in Rs.) 1 Tata

CITYSTAR GANGULY PROJECTS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 9, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

194A of Rs.46,407/-. On these facts we note that the information gathered u/s 133(6) substantiated the creditworthiness of the loan creditor. It is further observed that M/s Hotahoti Wood Products Ltd is an associate company of the assessee because its Designated Partner, Shri C R Modi is also the Director on the Board of the loan creditor

SHRI KISHAN SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, on this issue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2265/Kol/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups4979 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Kol/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Vs. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups 4979 C (Revenue) .. (Assessee) Assesseeby : Shri S.D Varma, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Cross-Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Are Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, Kolkata In Appeal No.238/Cit(A)- Xxx/Cir-45/2013-14, Dated 29.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed

section 143(3)/263/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 31.01.2014. 2. Since these two cross-appeals relate to same assessee, same Assessment Year, identical issues involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3

ACIT, CIRCLE-45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI KISHAN SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, on this issue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2265/Kol/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups4979 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Kol/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Vs. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups 4979 C (Revenue) .. (Assessee) Assesseeby : Shri S.D Varma, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Cross-Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Are Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, Kolkata In Appeal No.238/Cit(A)- Xxx/Cir-45/2013-14, Dated 29.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed

section 143(3)/263/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 31.01.2014. 2. Since these two cross-appeals relate to same assessee, same Assessment Year, identical issues involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

68 SOT 307) & Biria Corporation ltd Vs DCIT (69 SOT 217). In all these judgments, identical view has been endorsed by the jurisdictional ITAT, Kolkata that in respect of actual cost of machinery installed but put to use for period less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed at the reduced rate of 10% in the earlier year, then

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

68 SOT 307) & Biria Corporation ltd Vs DCIT (69 SOT 217). In all these judgments, identical view has been endorsed by the jurisdictional ITAT, Kolkata that in respect of actual cost of machinery installed but put to use for period less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed at the reduced rate of 10% in the earlier year, then

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

68 SOT 307) & Biria Corporation ltd Vs DCIT (69 SOT 217). In all these judgments, identical view has been endorsed by the jurisdictional ITAT, Kolkata that in respect of actual cost of machinery installed but put to use for period less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed at the reduced rate of 10% in the earlier year, then