COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

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

depreciation etc. Aggrieved by such order the assessee preferred an appeal before the leaned Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that the CIT(A) failed to take note of the material irregularity committed by the Assessing Officer while initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act for reopening assessment under Section 147 without noting the vital fact that

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 41(1) of the IT Act and held that the Respondent had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else than depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAXPAYERS UNITS),KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

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

depreciation as per section 32(1) of the Act, which is allowed to be set-off against the income under

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 as per section 32(1) of the Act, which is allowed to be set-off against the income under

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 :-

depreciable assets is not only restricted for the purposes of Section 48 or Section 49 of the Act as specifically stated therein and the said fiction created in sub-section (1

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

Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on block of assets on which 100% depreciation has been prescribed

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

section (4) shall apply as if the words ’not being any article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule ‘ had been omitted. Explantation 1.— For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as 6 machinery or plant previously used

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

section 142(1) along with a questionnaire was issued on 31.12.2004, the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee. The Assessing Officer on considering the following issues completed the Assessment by order dated 30.03.2006. The different heads under which the assessments were completed are as here under:- (i) Depreciation

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

depreciation on assets purchased and acquired before 31.03.2002 as because as per Section 32(1)(iia) additional depreciation can only

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

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

Section 32 (1) (II) of the Act 1961 to contend that depreciation is admissible in respect of a license used

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

Section 35, in the sub column A1 the figure debited to the statement of profit and loss has been shown as ITAT NO. 211 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 7 of 10 Rs. 219,556,764/- in column A(ii)the amount admissible (net depreciation and asset written off) Rs. 206, 111,599/- has been mentioned. In column B(1

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which stipulates that capital/speculation expenditure is not an allowable expenditure for deduction ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in law in allowing relief to the assessee company on account of additional depreciation

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which stipulates that capital/speculation expenditure is not an allowable expenditure for deduction ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in law in allowing relief to the assessee company on account of additional depreciation

M/S C AND E LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA 4 KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order

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

1,72,45,790/-. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80IC of the Act in respect of its Unit IV being the 7th year of such claim and 2nd year from the date when the assessee made substantial expansion. The date of substantial expansion as mentioned in Form 10CCB is November 13, 2012 relevant to the Financial Year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee could claim enhanced depreciation

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 under Section 32(1)(iia) could be allowed on same in that year, balance additional depreciation of 10% could

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 of Rs. 67,56,925/- under Section