PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA PVT LTD

Accordingly the appeal ITAT/173/2021 fails and is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench (Tribunal) in ITA No.1121/Kol/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- A. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by directing the Assessing Officer to allow additional depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4.KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED

The appeal stands disposed of on

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

additional depreciation and clause (B) in the first proviso to Section 32(I)(iia) would not stand attracted. The Commissioner of Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LTD.

In the result the appeals in so far as the assessment

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011- 12 by holding the assessment orders for these assessment years passed by the assessing officer as not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue as the direction of Pr CIT for making additions on account of additional depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata, has erred in law in allowing the additional depreciation @20% under Section 32(1)(iia) which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Income Tax Act, 2 1961 on the issue of assessee’s claim of additional depreciation of Rs.19,26,87,056/- when

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 8Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Sapna Das, Adv. Mr. S. Das, Adv. …For Respondent

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘A’ Bench Kolkata in ITA No.113/Kol/2017, CO No. 16/Kol/2017, A/o ITA 113/Kol/2017 relating to Assessment Year 2009-2010. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- i) WHETHER the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of 50% of additional depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIAL LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 2109/Kol/2019 for the financial year 2015-16. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Income Tax (Appeals) – XX [CIT(A)] which has deleted the addition made by the assessing officer on three issues, namely, foreign travel expenses, claim for additional depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

Bench: :

addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the said ground was not relevant to the order of the lower authorities ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/assessee. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL-2,KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING CO.PVT LTD.

In the result, we find that question no

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act and allowed the deduction of Rs.6,93,39,027/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and its purported findings in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs.5

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : November 03, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhertha Das, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th November, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Itat No. 1461/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Years 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether The Assessee Was Entitled To Get Benefit Of Additional Depreciation @10% Amounting To Rs.1,35,64,743/- On The Assets Purchased & Put To Use On Latter Half Of The Financial Year 2012-13 Or Not ? Ii) Whether The Provisions Of Sec. 14A R.W. Rules, 1962 Could Be Invoked To Determine The Expenses Related To The Exempt Income Or Not ? We Have Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Duly Assisted By Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The For The Respondent.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITAT No. 1461/Kol/2019 for the assessment years 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i) Whether the assessee was entitled to get benefit of additional depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LIMITED

In the result, the substantial questions of law framed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Income Tax Act, 1961 and came to an erroneous decision that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciations claimed on plant

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOL vs. M/S EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

depreciation? b) Whether of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, ITAT 230 of 2017 Page 3 of 14 was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 KOLKATA vs. M/S LANDIS GYR

In the result, the substantial questions of law (i)

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Soham Sen, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated October 17, 2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.524/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting relief to the assessee on addition of ₹34,05,322/- on the issue of “Depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-3, KOLKATA vs. SIKARIA INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

addition in income of Rs.9,29,49,804/-, as under: i) On account of inflated/bogus purchase from eight parties but notices under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961: Rs.1,56,90,244/-. ii) On account of not producing eight parties by the assessee during assessment proceedings under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961: Rs.66

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. HINDUSTAN GUM AND CHEMICALS LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in law in allowing relief to the assessee company on account of additional depreciation without

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-5, KOLKATA vs. M/S MERLIN RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in law in allowing relief to the assessee company on account of additional depreciation without

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 12Th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2020, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, `D Virtual Court’, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1486/Kol/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- A. Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Confirming The Decision Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Allowing Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,09,80,30,873/- On Transfer Of Government Securities After Applying Cost Inflation Index On Sale Of Government Securities & Holding He Government Securities Are Not Bond & Debentures For The Purpose Of 3Rd Proviso To Section 48 Of The Act (4Th Proviso After Amendment) Which Is Petently Wrong & Latently Irregular ?

depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby misread and misinterpreted the said provision of law and so the direction of Tribunal is perverse ? C. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in confirming the decision of Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition