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

194J of the Act on the total payment of Rs. 2.60 crore in the fourth quarter of F.Y. 2009-10.” The ld AO observed that non-deduction of tax at source on the same would make the assessee as an ‘assessee in default’ in terms of section 201(1) of the Act and would be invited with consequential interest

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

194J of the Act on the total payment of Rs. 2.60 crore in the fourth quarter of F.Y. 2009-10.” The ld AO observed that non-deduction of tax at source on the same would make the assessee as an ‘assessee in default’ in terms of section 201(1) of the Act and would be invited with consequential interest

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

194J of the Act on the total payment of Rs. 2.60 crore in the fourth quarter of F.Y. 2009-10.” The ld AO observed that non-deduction of tax at source on the same would make the assessee as an ‘assessee in default’ in terms of section 201(1) of the Act and would be invited with consequential interest

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

194J of the Act on the total payment of Rs. 2.60 crore in the fourth quarter of F.Y. 2009-10.” The ld AO observed that non-deduction of tax at source on the same would make the assessee as an ‘assessee in default’ in terms of section 201(1) of the Act and would be invited with consequential interest

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

194J of the Act on the total payment of Rs. 2.60 crore in the fourth quarter of F.Y. 2009-10.” The ld AO observed that non-deduction of tax at source on the same would make the assessee as an ‘assessee in default’ in terms of section 201(1) of the Act and would be invited with consequential interest

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

194J of the Act on the total payment of Rs. 2.60 crore in the fourth quarter of F.Y. 2009-10.” The ld AO observed that non-deduction of tax at source on the same would make the assessee as an ‘assessee in default’ in terms of section 201(1) of the Act and would be invited with consequential interest

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

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 201(1A) of the Act. Accordingly, total demand of Rs.1

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

68,963/- under section 115-0 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and\ninterest thereon Rs.4,06,965/- under section 115-P of the Act considering\nthe appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society,\nwhich is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.\n5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

68 (ITAT) (Del) Marketing and Development Expenses During the concerned assessment year various foreign remittances have been made to foreign vendors towards marketing and development services. The exact nature of service provided by each vendor is explained as follows. a) CORNELL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF H. ITHACA NEW YORK, 14850, USA – The vendor is an education institution and provides learning material

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

68 (ITAT) (Del) Marketing and Development Expenses During the concerned assessment year various foreign remittances have been made to foreign vendors towards marketing and development services. The exact nature of service provided by each vendor is explained as follows. a) CORNELL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF H. ITHACA NEW YORK, 14850, USA – The vendor is an education institution and provides learning material

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/- under section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest thereon Rs.4,06,965/- under section 115-P of the Act considering the appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society, which is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. 5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC

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

68,963/- under section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and\ninterest thereon Rs.4,06,965/- under section 115-P of the Act considering\nthe appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society,\nwhich is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.\n5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

68,79,202/- AYs 2006-07 to 2008-09 Rs.111,91,59,021/-” 4. According to AO, the assessee has not deducted TDS and claimed that the same are not covered u/s. 194C & 194J of the Act. According to AO, these payments are covered u/s. 194C & 194J of the Act and TDS has to be deducted. But, the assessee failed

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

68,79,202/- AYs 2006-07 to 2008-09 Rs.111,91,59,021/-” 4. According to AO, the assessee has not deducted TDS and claimed that the same are not covered u/s. 194C & 194J of the Act. According to AO, these payments are covered u/s. 194C & 194J of the Act and TDS has to be deducted. But, the assessee failed

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

68,79,202/- AYs 2006-07 to 2008-09 Rs.111,91,59,021/-” 4. According to AO, the assessee has not deducted TDS and claimed that the same are not covered u/s. 194C & 194J of the Act. According to AO, these payments are covered u/s. 194C & 194J of the Act and TDS has to be deducted. But, the assessee failed

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JATINDRA NATH GHOSH, KOLKATA

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

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

194J, of the Act as presumed by the A.O. On the basis of the documents produced by the applicant and argument made by the A.R Sec. 194C is applicable, since the applicant deducted total TDS amount Rs.1721/- from the part payment made against the total bill amount of Rs. 3,80,585/-; Such short deduction

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

194J in the It Act, 1961. vii. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” Shri Saurabh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue and Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of assessee. 2. First issue raised by Revenue in ground

GOUTAM DAS,HOWRAH vs. DCIT,CIR-48,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 68 in the instant case and we hold that the additions made in this regard in the sums of Rs. 10,89,507/- and Rs. 17,84,000/- for Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively are hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly , the Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years

GOUTAM DAS,HOWRAH vs. DCIT,CIR-48,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 68 in the instant case and we hold that the additions made in this regard in the sums of Rs. 10,89,507/- and Rs. 17,84,000/- for Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively are hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly , the Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years