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

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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

10 [(other than the provisions contained in clause (23G) thereof)] or section 10A or section 10B or section 11 8 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or [(iii) the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation

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 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Page 5 of 77 referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 6. In appeal filed by the respondent ITC before the CIT[Appeal], the appeal was allowed and the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs.32.42 crores was held to be a capital receipt

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

section 153C of the Act for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009- 10 and its purported findings in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for the claim of additional depreciation

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:

10, is not includible in the total income.” Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal submitted that fringe benefit tax is an additional income tax as would appear from Section 115WA. Therefore, the rules applicable for the purpose of assessing income tax would also be applicable for the purpose of arriving at a valuation of the fringe

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

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 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 which is permissible under section 32 of the Act. Thus, the tribunal concluded that the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim is based on the premise that the assessee has made a double claim which was found to be factually incorrect by the tribunal. Accordingly, the disallowance was directed to be deleted. ITAT

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

10 details of scientific research expenditure as claimed as deduction vis-a-vis the amount debited to profit and loss account including depreciation debited in books in relation to scientific research assets. Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued on 23.12.2018 requiring the assessee to explain as to why the excess deduction claimed under Section

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

10, 2015 stating that during the assessment proceedings it was observed that Unit IV was allowed to avail the benefit under Section 80IC as per the Entrepreneur’s memorandum Part II dated October 21, 2008 issued by the Member Secretary, Single Window Clearance Agency, Himachal Pradesh wherein the commercial production was taken on record from July

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

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 of hire ?” We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel for the revenue and Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Swapna

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:

Depreciation on Intellectual property Assets”? (vi) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on law Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting relief to the assessee on the addition of ₹10,63,042/- on the issue of “Provision on obsolescence of inventory? (vii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

10 HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (ORIGINAL SIDE) ITAT/40/2020 IA NO.GA/1/2020 (OLD NO.GA/1196/2020) GA/2/2020(OLD NO.GA/1197/2020) (Through Video Conferencing) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA ….Appellant(s) Through: Mr. P.K. Bhowmick with Mr. Ashok Bhowmick, Advocates v/s HINDUSTAN GUM AND CHEMICALS LTD. . ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate (VC) with Mr. Sanjay Bhaumik, Ms. Swapna

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

10 HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (ORIGINAL SIDE) ITAT/40/2020 IA NO.GA/1/2020 (OLD NO.GA/1196/2020) GA/2/2020(OLD NO.GA/1197/2020) (Through Video Conferencing) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA ….Appellant(s) Through: Mr. P.K. Bhowmick with Mr. Ashok Bhowmick, Advocates v/s HINDUSTAN GUM AND CHEMICALS LTD. . ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate (VC) with Mr. Sanjay Bhaumik, Ms. Swapna

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

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

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 16th December, 2021 passed by the 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

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in setting aside revisional order of the Commissioner on the question of disallowability maintenance expenses and depreciation was contrary to law or not? (ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal in permitting deduction of lease rent for vehicle obtained on lease by the Assessee was perverse

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in setting aside revisional order of the Commissioner on the question of disallowability maintenance expenses and depreciation was contrary to law or not? (ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal in permitting deduction of lease rent for vehicle obtained on lease by the Assessee was perverse