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 40A(3) of the Act and ultimately upheld the disallowance of Rs. 68,49,395/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2.3. Aggrieved

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, 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

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/- being the amount paid for purchase of country liquor under the rules and directions framed by the Government, paid as such, the provisions of section 40A

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/- being the amount paid for purchase of country liquor under the rules and directions framed by the Government, paid as such, the provisions of section 40A

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:-

section 40a(ia) of Rs.60,68,502/- and addition of Rs.5,83,695.21 without taking views of the assessee

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

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

BARIK BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee

BARIK BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, we feel that the same needs verification at the end of the ld. AO and accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to frame the assessment de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee