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, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee is covered under the Treaties. Needless to mention that if the AO can also find out about the examination

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee is covered under the Treaties. Needless to mention that if the AO can also find out about the examination

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee is covered under the Treaties. Needless to mention that if the AO can also find out about the examination

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee is covered under the Treaties. Needless to mention that if the AO can also find out about the examination

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

9 expenditure under second and third limb of Rule 8D computation involving corresponding sums of ₹90,53,109/- and ₹95,770/-; respectively. The CIT(A) has deleted only former of said two components as follows:- “3.0 Ground Nos. 4 & 5 – Section 14A: As per page 23 and 27 of the Paper Book the investment picked

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

40A(2). ii. That on the fact and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.46,80,089/- on account of wrong appreciation of facts ignoring the provisions of section 73. iii. That on the fact and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting

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

40A(2). ii. That on the fact and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.46,80,089/- on account of wrong appreciation of facts ignoring the provisions of section 73. iii. That on the fact and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting

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

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

68,458/- when village where the assessee’s shop was established had no banking facility and the payment made directly to the bank account of the seller was not hit by the provisions of sec. 40A(3). (5) For that even otherwise having regard to the nature and extent of banking facilities available consideration of business expediency and other relevant

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

68,458/- when village where the assessee’s shop was established had no banking facility and the payment made directly to the bank account of the seller was not hit by the provisions of sec. 40A(3). (5) For that even otherwise having regard to the nature and extent of banking facilities available consideration of business expediency and other relevant

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

68 from its business loss reported in the return Alishan Steels Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2011-12 & 2015-16 which has been denied by the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). We find that in the present case, the issue is already held to be in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala

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

68 from its business loss reported in the return Alishan Steels Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2011-12 & 2015-16 which has been denied by the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). We find that in the present case, the issue is already held to be in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala

TATA TEA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C IRCLE- 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

40A(9) is not applicable because this section stands for any funds, institutions, where the assessee made the subscription for the purpose of welfare of the employees. That means that there should be a complete identity between the donor and the done. Here staff recreation club and the staff club were a part and parcel of the Tata

DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA TEA LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

40A(9) is not applicable because this section stands for any funds, institutions, where the assessee made the subscription for the purpose of welfare of the employees. That means that there should be a complete identity between the donor and the done. Here staff recreation club and the staff club were a part and parcel of the Tata

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.

40A(3) and the Ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order directed the A.O. to verify the same and allow appropriate relief to the assessee on such verification. In my opinion, the assessee therefore cannot be said to have any grievance on these issues and even the learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to dispute this position

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