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

disallowability maintenance expenses and depreciation was contrary to law or not? (ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal in permitting

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

depreciation computed incorrectly at Rs. 18,74,034/- is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee

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

disallowance of depreciation which was charged to profit and loss account and added back by the assessee itself in the return

M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

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

depreciation has been prescribed and thus disallowing 50% depreciation on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than 180 days? iv) Whether

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. RAMKRISHNA FORGING LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 27Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv., ….For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13Th February 2019 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.(Ss).A. No. 09 (Kol) Of 2017 Relating To The A.Y. 2010-2011.. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- (I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Provision For Allowing Additional Depreciation Of Remaining 50% Is Allowable In The Subsequent Year I.E. Assessment Year 2010-11, Although The Statute Allowed The Same W.E.F. 01.04.2016 ? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred On Facts By Not Appreciating The Legal Provisions That Disallowance Of The Claim Of The Remaining Additional

depreciation of remaining 50% is allowable in the subsequent year i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11, although the statute allowed the same w.e.f. 01.04.2016 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred on facts by not appreciating the legal provisions that disallowance

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

disallowance of 50% of additional depreciation as 50% of additional depreciation was claimed in preceding assessment year on new plant

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

depreciation to the extent of 40% is permissible for a life saving machine, which in fact, has been allowed for MRI, i.e. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, there is no justification in disallowing

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

depreciation to the extent of 40% is permissible for a life saving machine, which in fact, has been allowed for MRI, i.e. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, there is no justification in disallowing

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

disallowance of additional depreciation claimed, we are informed by the learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee that such exercise has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAY BEE INDUSTRIAL ALLOYS PVT LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed on the

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

disallowances of Rs.50,000/- on account of depreciation without judging genunity of the assessee’s claim ? 2 (ii) Whether on the facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION,KOLKATA vs. MAA SARASWATI GYAN MANDIR EDUCATION SOCIETY

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 26Th July, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv. Md. Afzal Ansari, Adv. … For Respondent

disallowance of Rs.2,84,67,351/- claimed towards depreciation. The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has relied on the decision

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

disallowances of Rs.12,45,778/- on account of additional depreciation made by the assessing officer without citing any cogent reason

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: :

Disallowance u/s 68 1,82,30,000 5,28,12,849 Total Income 5,28,12,849 Less : Unabsorbed Depreciation

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.

depreciation @10% amounting to Rs.1,35,64,743/- on the assets purchased and 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

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 :-

disallowance on account of upfront fees, paid to ICICI Bank. We have perused the finding recorded by the tribunal and we find that the tribunal has elaborately discussed the facts before affirming the view taking by CIT(A). We find that no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration. The last ground was with regard

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.

Would be that the agricultural income itself would become liable

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Chaudhury, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Against The Order Dated 8Th October, 2015 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita Nos. 262 & 263/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

depreciation “actually allowed.” Hence we find no merit in the civil appeals filed by the Department.” The next judgment cited by Mr. Majumdar in the case of Jayshree Tea and Industries Limited vs. Union of India reported in 285 ITR 506 (Cal) wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that Rule 8 was applicable to the additional income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

disallowed. 5. According to the PCIT, the assessing officer failed to verify the above issues and therefore it was proposed to invoke Section 263 of the Act. 6. With regard to the first query, the assessee in their response dated 24.03.2021 stated that the allegation is factually incorrect. It was stated that the assessee has suo moto added back

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowed by the assessee while computing its income: Rs.41,047/-. Total Rs.9,29,49,804/-. 7. The CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata in appeal no. 264/CIT(A)-VI/Cir- 6/11-12/Kol disposed of the appeal by a detailed order dated 9.11.2012 while determining the total income at Rs.1,79,98,687/- by appellant and net profit rate of 8% on the contract received