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

68 of the Paper Book. – Kindlysee Para 10 onwards of the Judgement at Pages 63 to 66 of the Paper Book. Pleasesee Para 10 wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court referred to the Judgement ofApex Court in the case of HarshadShantilal Mehta and held that tax does not includeInterest or penalty. 4.4 Now, I refer to the Judgement

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

68,583/- being employers' contribution under being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

68, read with section , read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) (Accommodation entry) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Information was received from Information was received from 6 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. investigation wing that assessee investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the I.T. Act. iii. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. AO framed the assessment order u/s 143(3) vide order dated 14.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18 of the Act. The assessee in its return of income disclosing total income

M/S SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

68,95,685/- was claimed. Assessment proceedings were completed wherein ld.A.O made disallowance of Rs. 4,22,409/- u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of employees’ contribution to provident fund and ESI which was deposited to the Govt. Account beyond the prescribed due date. Further, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was made of Rs. 1

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

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

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 ]

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

TRIDENT SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

TRIDENT SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

KANCHAN METALS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' 8 AY: 2018-19 Kanchan Metals Pvt. Ltd. contribution is not deposited

M/S JAIKISHANDASS MALL JUTE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CPC, , BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted 8 AY: 2018-19 Jaikishandass Mall Jute Products Pvt. Ltd. the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution

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

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

HIND ELECTRIC & TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. CPC/ITO, WD-40(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 464/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

ORANGE SECURITAS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.O. CIR. 6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 490/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Orange Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.O., Circle-6(2), Kolkata (Pan: Aaaco 8239 L) Appellant Respondent

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 481/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Premier Irrigation Adritec Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata (Pan: Aafcm 4800 Q) Appellant Respondent

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

M/S JAYANTA FOOD PRODUCTS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 383 & 384/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

ARUN KUMAR BISWAS,BISHNUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-26(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 370 & 408/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

M/S JAYANTA FOOD PRODUCTS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 383 & 384/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts