M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 36(1)(viii) for creation of special reserve under the said provision. 6. That the Learned CIT failed to appreciate the fact that bank is financial corporation and a public Company. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,68

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 36(1)(viii) for creation of special reserve under the said provision. 6. That the Learned CIT failed to appreciate the fact that bank is financial corporation and a public Company. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,68

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

36) companies to the tune of Rs. 20.54 cr., without any enquiry is arbitrary exercise of power for which there is no sanction of law and so is untenable. According to him, the assessment is that of AY 2012-13 and the amendment of section 68

I.T.O.,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S REWARD HIRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the Act of Rs. 2,77,70,000/- is hereby deleted.” 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee has raised share capital/share premium to the tune of Rs. 2,77,70,000/- from twenty two share subscribers out of whom 21 were individual subscribers

I.T.O.,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S REWARD HIRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the Act of Rs. 2,77,70,000/- is hereby deleted.” 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee has raised share capital/share premium to the tune of Rs. 2,77,70,000/- from twenty two share subscribers out of whom 21 were individual subscribers

TRADELINK CARRYING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the ‘Act’ hereinafter). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its e- return for the assessment year 2013-14 on 16-09-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,17,810/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny through CASS. The AO notes

JCIT(OSD),CIR.-12(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA

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

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., , KOLKATA

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

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

J.C.I.T.(OSD),CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S WERIT GLOBAL LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

FIZAAN COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-15(1), KOLKATA

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

36 of paper book. From a perusal of page 29 of the paper book it is discerned that this is the 32nd Annual Report i.e. for AY 2012-13, which is seen placed from pages 29 to 59 of the paper book, thus the fact of incorporation of this company 32 years back is corroborated. The Ld. AR drew

M/S BALAJI EXPORT CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 29, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey] Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted

DESANA POLY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted

MICROVIEWS INFOSYSTEMS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.P.C., BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted

FLOWLINE SERVICES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CPC, BANGAORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 556/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Raghvendra Pratap Singh Vs. Dcit (Cpc) Bangalore (Pan: Amaps3456L) Appellant Respondent

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted

HINDUSTAN FIBRE GLASS WORKS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 608/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hindustan Fibre Glass Works Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan: Aabfh6597G) Appellant Respondent

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted