M/S RAIGANJ COMMUNICATION,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO,WARD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09

section 194H of the Act would come into play only when the payment is from principal to agent. Hence we find no infirmity in the order of the Learned CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, the ground no 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed.” Taking a consistent view of the co-ordinate Benches of Cuttack and this Tribunal

ACIT, CIRCLE - 30, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI NISHEETH KUMAR TOTLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2168/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Circle 30, Kolkata...............................…………………………................................Appellant 2, Gariahat Road (South), Aayakar Bhawan Kakshin, Kolkata – 700 068. [Pan: Ackpt 3796] Shri Nisheeth Kumar Totla...................................................................................Respondent 4A/1, Motilal Nehru Road, Rashbehari, Kolkata – 700 029. Appearances By: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Vikash Surana, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 19, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 26, 2018 Order

section 194H of the Act.” 3. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of trading of paper and paper boards. The return of 2 I.T.A. No. 2168/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Nisheeth Kumar Totla income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2011 declaring a total

SITANGSHU DAS,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 26(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

194H of the Act and deleted the\naddition of Rs. 2,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act and the\nappeal

VISHAL JALAN,CHINSURAHA vs. ITO, WD. 45(4),., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vishal Jalan…………......................................................................................………………….............Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin- 712 105 West Bengal [Pan : Acfpj 9905 L] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(4), Kolkata……...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

194H of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also

SHRI SADHAN PAUL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-2, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

194H. And whether, therefore, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act was unjustified. For both the questions the Tribunal answered in the affirmative in favour of assessee, therefore, relying on the ratio decidendi of both these decisions and the Delhi Tribunal’s order in Rakesh Kumar Vs. CIT, ITA No. 3386/Del/2014 dated 13.08.2018, we allow this ground of appeal

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,963/- which is related to Ground No. 3 as on the change of status, the Ld. AO was of the view that the dividend of ₹59,72,961/- declared @ 10% to the shareholders from 11.09.2021 was liable to be subjected to dividend distribution tax which was levied and the Ld. AO’s view has been confirmed

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

194H; (ii) “fees for technical services” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; ITA No.650/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Wd-45(2) Kol v. M/s Ashok Trading Co. Page 6 (iii) “professional services” shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

68,963/- which is related to Ground No. 3 as on\nthe change of status, the Ld. AO was of the view that the dividend of\n₹59,72,961/- declared @ 10% to the shareholders from 11.09.2021 was\nliable to be subjected to dividend distribution tax which was levied and\nthe Ld. AO's view has been confirmed

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

68,963/- which is related to Ground No. 3 as on\nthe change of status, the Ld. AO was of the view that the dividend of\n₹59,72,961/- declared @ 10% to the shareholders from 11.09.2021 was\nliable to be subjected to dividend distribution tax which was levied and\nthe Ld. AO's view has been confirmed

BIBHUTI BHUSHAN DAS ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 25(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.237/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bibhuti Bhushan Das Vs. Ito, Ward-25(3), Kolkata. P-42, Block-A, Shatabdi Park, Mukundpur, Kolkata – 700099. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aidpd4689B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 7, Kolkata’S Order Dated 25.02.2019 Passed In Case No.36/Cit(A)-7/Kol/Ward-25(3)/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. Case File Suggests That Rpad Notice Dated 29.11.2019 Stand Returned Unserved. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte. 2. The Assessee Raises The Following Three Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal:

68 of the I.T Act. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee on this ground is partly allowed.” 4. It is crystal clear from the assessee’s first substantive ground and in view of the CIT(A)’s foregoing detailed discussion that the clinching fact involved herein is that reconciliation of impugned sum allegedly received on behalf of M/s City Live Construction

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBES LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

68 of the Act, is correct. 5.2 Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted before us that the assessee, had submitted the details of major parties of Small Scale Suppliers, Other Suppliers and Other Liabilities. Apart from this, the assessee had made a detailed submission before the ld CIT(A) which is reproduced below: “However, due to inadequate time provided

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBES LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

68 of the Act, is correct. 5.2 Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted before us that the assessee, had submitted the details of major parties of Small Scale Suppliers, Other Suppliers and Other Liabilities. Apart from this, the assessee had made a detailed submission before the ld CIT(A) which is reproduced below: “However, due to inadequate time provided

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. BURNPUR CEMENT LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-I, Lower Vs. Brunpur Cement Ltd., 141, Chelidanga, Asansol-4 Cement House, Saradapally, Ashok Nagar, Asansol, District-Burdwan- 713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca 1999 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar Cit Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Asansol, In Appeal No.296/Cit(A)/Asl/R-I/Asl/10-11 Dated 31.10.2011 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment Framed U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

194H of Income Tax Act 1961 on payment/credit of handling charges & commission respectively. 3.2. The assessee submitted the copy of agreement with M/s R.L.Distributors (Annexure C1 to C4 of Paper Book) ; Details of sales made in the district of Gaya and Nawada in preceding and succeeding years (Annexure C5 of Paper Book) ; Copy of bills of M/s R.L.Distributors together with

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,38,770/- and Rs.5,04,44,366/- were claimed by the assessee under sections 80IA and 80IB of the Act respectively. During the course of assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee for the said deductions was examined by the Assessing Officer and on such examination, he found that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IA

ECONOMIC MEDICAL STORES ,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE - 1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.118/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Economic Medical Stores Vs. Jcit, Range-I, Hooghly 23/1, Panchanantala Street, P.O & P.S. Rishra, Dist: Hooghly, Pin- 712101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaafe8315Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

194H of the Act. The assessee’s reliance on various clarifications (supra) also are devoid of merit since these nowhere deal with TDS on commission payment required under Chapter XVII of the Act. We observe in these facts and circumstances that the learned lower authorities have rightly invoked the impugned disallowance in principle so far as assessee’s commission payments

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

68,47,415 Contract receipts 87,45,69,722 (sales) Purchases [ work allotted 79,61,15,855 Commission and other 11,17,53,928 to sub contractors back to receipts back] Fright, Power & Fuel and 14,49,03093 Other income 7,76,96,586 Salary & Wages Other expenses against 7,30,20,695 Closing Stock 4,16,85,144 other

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

68,47,415 Contract receipts 87,45,69,722 (sales) Purchases [ work allotted 79,61,15,855 Commission and other 11,17,53,928 to sub contractors back to receipts back] Fright, Power & Fuel and 14,49,03093 Other income 7,76,96,586 Salary & Wages Other expenses against 7,30,20,695 Closing Stock 4,16,85,144 other

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

68,47,415 Contract receipts 87,45,69,722 (sales) Purchases [ work allotted 79,61,15,855 Commission and other 11,17,53,928 to sub contractors back to receipts back] Fright, Power & Fuel and 14,49,03093 Other income 7,76,96,586 Salary & Wages Other expenses against 7,30,20,695 Closing Stock 4,16,85,144 other