PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 4, KOLKATA vs. M/S JCT LIIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1983/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue Has Framed The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration: “(A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Erred In Law In

depreciation amount is larger than the amount of the profits of that business, then such excess comes for absorption from the profits and gains from any other business or business, if any, carried on by the assessee. If a balance is left even thereafter, that becomes deductible from out of income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

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

Business Income” instead of “Income from Other Sources”? (iii) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in facts and circumstances and in law in allowing for depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. KOTHARI GLOBAL LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not; x x x 15) On a perusal of the said provision, it is evident that it is a sine qua non that there should be an allowance or deduction claimed

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Business of the appellant @ 8% of the gross contract receipts would be fair and reasonable and the appellant has also accepted the same to be fair, reasonable and appropriate. In these facts and circumstances after rejecting the books of accounts due to defects the income of the appellant is assessed taking net profit @ 8% on contract receipts

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

SAUMABHA DASGUPTA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) 6 KOLKATA AND ANR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

business purposes and depreciation to the extent of 15% which in fact should be allowed to the extent of 40% under Section 32(1) of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. ADITYA SARAF HUF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

business purposes and depreciation to the extent of 15% which in fact should be allowed to the extent of 40% under Section 32(1) of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITA/62/2018) is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

income to the tune of Rs.1,69,85,132/- which evidences the business nexus of use of aircrafts owned by the respondent/assessee. This being the finding of fact and not disputed by the revenue even before us, it can be safely concluded that the aircrafts were utilised for business purpose. Even if officers of the respondent/assessee i.e. directors have used

BHAG CHAND CHHABRA A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12

In the result, the appeal (ITA/62/2018) is dismissed

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

income to the tune of Rs.1,69,85,132/- which evidences the business nexus of use of aircrafts owned by the respondent/assessee. This being the finding of fact and not disputed by the revenue even before us, it can be safely concluded that the aircrafts were utilised for business purpose. Even if officers of the respondent/assessee i.e. directors have used

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 Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing 30% depreciation amounting to 3 Rs.14,68,279/- in the Assessment Year 2009-10 as claimed by the assessee since the same is entitled to 15% on lorries, which was not used for the business

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 year 2009-10 without considering the merit of disallowance of depreciation claim @ 30 % on lorry which are not used for hiring business

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 the assessee was neither engaged in business

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

Income Tax-Iv 2010 V-327 ITR 323 SC (para 19) and Section 32 (1) (II) of the Act 1961 to contend that depreciation is admissible in respect of a license used for the purpose of business

RAJESH KUMAR DROLIA (HUF) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - III, KOLKATA

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in this section. 5 (2) This section applies to any industrial undertaking which fulfils all the following conditions, namely:— (i) it is not formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business

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 on assets purchased and acquired before 31.03.2002 as because as per Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4 vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/233/2018) is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th November, 2021 Appearance :-

business profit. On this issue, the tribunal after noting the finding rendered by the assessing officer, as to how the CIT(A) reversed the same, on its part, re-examined the factual position and elaborately considered the matter, took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. G. Venkataswami Naidu reported

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

business purpose? (ii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as on fact and the impugned order is perverse in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals) thereby deleting the disallowances of Rs.12,45,778/- on account of additional depreciation made by the assessing officer without citing

C. E. S. C. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF I.TAX, KOLKATA-II

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Kolkata (in short the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.1872(Kol) of 2002 for the assessment year 1994-95. The appeal was admitted to decide the following substantial question of law: 2 I) Whether having regard to the settled legal proposition and having regard to the fact that the profits of the entire business