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

v. ACIT Cir-6 Kol. Page 2 2. Both the appeals are filed by the same assessee, and we decided to take up both the appeals together and pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we take up ITA No.1803/Kol/2009 for A.Y.04-05 3. Assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred

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

v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC). The question before the Supreme Court was whether the payment of interest on money borrowed for payment of income-tax was an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business as contemplated by sub- section (1) of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court

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

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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 ]

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

JAYANTA CHAKRABORTY,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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

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]

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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]

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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]

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

BOROJALINGAH TEA COMPA NY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-34(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 465/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Borojalingah Tea Company Vs. Ito, Ward-34(1), Kolkata (Pan: Aacfb7772N) Appellant Respondent

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision

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

v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 at paras 60 to 70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J.” 10. And according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the later amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to be retrospective and for that proposition he cited the Constitution Bench decision