M/S EXCEL ENGINEERS,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 51,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 194C of the Act warranting disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld AO is directed to delete this disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 68,49,395/-. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. The ld AR during the course of hearing stated

M/S BIRGIRI C. S. SHOP,PURULIA vs. ITO, WD-3(2), PURULIA, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed

section (1) shall exercise the same unless or until he has received a license in that behalf from the Collector or the Excise Commissioner. Hence it could be safely concluded that M/s Asansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Pvt Ltd (Bottling Plant) is a warehouse within the meaning of Rule 2(vii) of the Excise Rules 2005 and said warehouse

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

40A(7)(b)(i) of the Act would be applicable which permit the claim revenue's in respect of the provision made for ascertained liability in respect of employees retired during the year. In view of the above, we allow ground Nos. 4 and 5 of the appeal by reversing the orders of the authorities below.” Respectfully, following the same

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case have already been elaborated in the preceding paragraph therefore we are not inclined to repeat the same for the sake of brevity. The disallowance was made by the AO considering the transactions of purchases and sales made by the assessee with

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case have already been elaborated in the preceding paragraph therefore we are not inclined to repeat the same for the sake of brevity. The disallowance was made by the AO considering the transactions of purchases and sales made by the assessee with

ASHOK KUMAR MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-2(2), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 40A(3) were not applicable. (3) For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.62,68,458/- when the payment was directly made in the bank account of the seller and a such the provisions of sec. 40A(3) were not applicable. (4) For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

M/S SARBARI SUPLIMENTARY C.S.SHOP,PURULIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 3(4), KOLKATA, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 40A(3) were not applicable. (3) For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.62,68,458/- when the payment was directly made in the bank account of the seller and a such the provisions of sec. 40A(3) were not applicable. (4) For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA, ASANSOL vs. M/S. MAA TARA TRASNPORT CO., BURNPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer V/S. M/S Maa Tara Transport Co. Ward-2(2), Parmer Radhanagar Road, P.O. Building, 54, G.T. Burnpur, Burdwan-713325 Road, Asansol-04 [Pan No.Aamfm 33326 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri B. Das, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Barsan Chatterjee, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asansol’S Order Dated 22.09.2014, Passed In Case No.142/C.I.T.(A)/Asl/W-2(2)/Asl/13-14 Restricting Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Transport Charges Of₹60,68,502/- @12.5% Only Coming To This ₹7,58,562/-, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Departmental Representative Vehemently Contends During The Course Of Hearing That Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Restricting The Impugned Disallowance Vide Following Detailed Discussion:- “24. Ground 18 Is Against Disallowance Under Section 40A(Ia). The Assessing Officer Disallowed Entries Transportation Charge As Vouchers Were Not Produced & Tax Was Not Deducted Under Section 194-I. After Hearing A Notice Was Issued To Assessing Officer As Under:-

7,58,562/-. The Assessing Officer is directed to replace the addition of Rs.60,68,502/- made under section 40a

ABDUL HAI,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 1759/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Hai................................…………………………………………………………………………..Appellant Prop. National Traders, Raha Lane, Asansol, Burdwan – 713 301 [Pan: Aanph 9226 J] I.T.O. Ward 2(1) Asansol,...................……………………………………………...................Respondent Burdwan – 713 304 Appearances By: Shri Debanuj Basu, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Asansol Dated 01.07.2014. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground No. 1 Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 18,232/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Difference In The Balance Of Sundry Creditors By Treating The Same As Bogus.

7. The disallowances made by the A.O. under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) both were challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that the expenditure of Rs. 41,240/- on account of advertisement

ALISHAN STEELS (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

40A(2)(b). 7. Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in confirming of a sum of Rs.1,39,218/- under section 14A. 8. Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,58,64,275/- of advances outstanding during previous financial year.” 4. In order to deal with the common ground in both the appeals, we take

ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

40A(2)(b). 7. Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in confirming of a sum of Rs.1,39,218/- under section 14A. 8. Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,58,64,275/- of advances outstanding during previous financial year.” 4. In order to deal with the common ground in both the appeals, we take

NARAYAN CHANDRA JANA,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 27(3), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 or u/s. 69 of the Act. Considering these facts and circumstances and in the light of aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. The issue raised in ground no. 2 is against

M/S SANJAY ENTERPRISES,KOLKATA vs. ITO., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

40A(3) is, therefore, not applicable to the said payments and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, which is partly sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals), is liable to be deleted. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has submitted that this stand now being taken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee was never specifically taken either before

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

40a(i). There is no dispute about the nature of payment being commission paid to foreign agents except for small amount of Rs.36,30,643j -, which is claimed by the appellant to have been paid to Indian agents after deduction of tax at source. The AO has proceeded by assuming that all the amounts are commission paid to foreign agents

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

68 of the Act, he submitted that these were advances received from various customers and the assessee has substantiated the received from various customers and the assessee has substantiated the received from various customers and the assessee has substantiated the same with evidences and hence the addition in question is bad in law. ame with evidences and hence the addition

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

68 of the Act, he submitted that these were advances received from various customers and the assessee has substantiated the received from various customers and the assessee has substantiated the received from various customers and the assessee has substantiated the same with evidences and hence the addition in question is bad in law. ame with evidences and hence the addition

MA PARAMESHWARI AGRO PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2010-11 Ma Parameswari Agro V/S. Acit, Circle-2, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Vill Bhawan, Kachari Road, Chotoposhla, P.O. Corut Compound, Dist. Baroposhla, P.S. Burdwan-713101 Mangalkote, Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713125 [Pan No.Aadcm5950F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shir Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robn Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-10-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 31-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Burdwan’S Order Dated 29.03.2016 In Case No.115/Cit(A)/Asl/Acit/Cir-2/Bwn/2013-14 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Come To Assessee’S Former Substantive Ground Challenging Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Its Cash Payment Of ₹74,59,954/- U/S40A(3) Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Findings Under Challenge After Considering The Assessing Officer’S Observations Both In Assessment As Well As Remand Report & Assessee’S Contentions Are Reproduced As Follows:-

68,62,049/- followed by similar sums ₹5,97,905/-; coming to impugned disallowance. Both the lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s case claiming these five persons to be its agents. They have not doubted its case in principle that it had purchased the raw-paddy for rice milling. We observe in these facts and circumstances that the assessee

M/S AB (WINES) STORES,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

section 40A(3) of the Act. The ld CIT also observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, the ld AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the following parties for purchases made from them:- Sl.No Name of the purchase party 1. M/s. B Deboo & Co.Pvt. Ltd. 2. M/s BBM Enterprise 3. M/s Mohan Brother (Drinks