KALI KINKAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, W 2(4), BWN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y. 2010-11

Section 194C of the Act. 5. In course of assessment proceedings, the AO found from the income and expenditure account that the Assessee debited an amount of Rs.5,67,300/- under the head ‘Travelling expenses’ and out of such amount a sum to an extent of Rs.4,10,090/- were paid to payments on account of car and four

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ATC LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1619/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-14(1),Kolkata -Vs- M/S Atc Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aahca 3020 A ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 57/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1619/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S Atc Logistics Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-14(1),Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 3020 A ] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

section 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act in as much as in all those cases, the PAN was indeed submitted to the competent authority but belatedly. Hence in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this issue to the file of the ld AO for verification of this aspect

ITO,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHANAKYA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

section will not cover contracts for sale for goods [CIRCULAR NO.681/F.No.275/54/93-ITB (1994) 206 ITR (ST) 299]. There is no dispute that there was a contract which in the instant case amounted to contract for sale of goods and not works contract so to invite the mischief of s. 194C of the Act. In the instance case, there

ITO, WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHOK TRADING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shrin.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

194C read with section to 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The details of the expenses can be summarized in the following manner : Sl. No. Name of party Amount paid 1 M/s Sangam Roadways 5,68

INDER CHAND AGARWAL(HUF),HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 45(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

68,713/- and notices U/sec 143(3) of the Act were issued, in response the Assessee filed details in support of return. In pursuance of its activities, payments aggregating to the sum of Rs. 11,77,600/- were made to Ashok Kumar Jain (HUF) amounting to Rs. 8,47,100/- and Bhamalal Jain (HUF) to the tune

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

68 the assessment was made on this sum. The ITAT noted that the assessed was a Public Limited Company which had received subscriptions to the public issue through banking channels and the shares were allotted in consonance with the provisions of the Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956 as also the Rules & Regulations of the Delhi Stock Exchange. Complete details appear

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

68 the assessment was made on this sum. The ITAT noted that the assessed was a Public Limited Company which had received subscriptions to the public issue through banking channels and the shares were allotted in consonance with the provisions of the Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956 as also the Rules & Regulations of the Delhi Stock Exchange. Complete details appear

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

68,411/-‘ 3.1 In the current year the AO has made the same disallowance by apportioning the finance cost in accordance to Rule 8D2(ii). The facts are identical. I have no reason to take a different view in the current year. The Assessing Officer's action, therefore, cannot be sustained. The grounds 4 & 5 have to allowed except

M/S TULSIRAM AGARWALA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-45(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.665/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

68,86,917/- and it was not taken into account at the time of assessment u/s. 143(3) though the same attracts provision of section 194C

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,086/- which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.” 16. Ld. AR before us drew our attention on page 132 of the paper book where the list of pollution control equipment was placed. He also submitted that all the details of the purchase bills of pollution equipments were duly furnished before the Authorities Below. Ld. AR further drew our attention

SHRI DILIP KUMAR NATHANY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

194C are clearly applicable and keeping in view that the Auditor in the audit report of in Form 3CD against column number 27 has clearly stated that provision of TDS were not complied with it is held that the TDS provision has been violated and the appellant was duly required to deduct TDS on the aforesaid payment. Now coming

ITO (TDS), WARD-58(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MEDIA WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

194C were general in nature, while the provisions of section 194J being special covering specific situation, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source at 10% instead of 2%. He, therefore, treated the assessee as in default in respect of short deduction of tax under section 201(1) of the Act and also charged interest under section

ABDUL HAI,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 1759/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Hai................................…………………………………………………………………………..Appellant Prop. National Traders, Raha Lane, Asansol, Burdwan – 713 301 [Pan: Aanph 9226 J] I.T.O. Ward 2(1) Asansol,...................……………………………………………...................Respondent Burdwan – 713 304 Appearances By: Shri Debanuj Basu, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Asansol Dated 01.07.2014. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground No. 1 Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 18,232/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Difference In The Balance Of Sundry Creditors By Treating The Same As Bogus.

194C, the A.O. invoked section 40(a)(ia) and made a disallowance of Rs. 41,240/-. He also found that an expenditure of Rs. 22,848/- under head advertisement was incurred by the assessee in cash in violation of section 40A(3). Since the assessee could not explain any exceptional circumstances under which the said expenditure was incurred

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAHA AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 194C of the Act could not be made applicable to the facts of 5 ITA No.2453/K/2013 & CO No.139/K/2013 M/s. Saha Agency, AY 2010-11 this case. We find that the Learned DR was not able to advance any specific arguments before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground no. 1 of revenue appeal

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

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. 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