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

12 under any of the other heads of income during that year. In case there is a still balance left over, it is to be treated as unabsorbed depreciation and it is taken to the next succeeding year. Where there is current depreciation for such succeeding year the unabsorbed depreciation is added to the current depreciation for such succeeding year

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

12,000/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 5,82,73,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05, and Rs. 5,92,06,000/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively claimed separately under the head “Social Overhead” over and above 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 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

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

Bench: :

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 for the respondent/assessee that

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

12%. The proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 44AD provides that it is applicable only if the gross receipt are loss that 5 Rs. 40 lakhs. However, the Assessing Officer and appellate authorities can take the help of general principles of law laid down in Section 44AD and it does not mean that it has applied it ipso facto

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

Section 32(1)(iia) could be allowed on same in that year, balance additional depreciation of 10% could be allowed on these assets in the relevant subsequent year 2009-10. The operative portion of the decision reads as follows:- 7. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]-I CIT (A), Chennai, who by order dated

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 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

depreciation on scientific research assets; assets written off and profit and loss on sales of asset debited in the profit and loss account. Thus, it was explained that the sum of Rs. 1,34,45,166/- was added back in the computation of income. This aspect of the matter has been analyzed by the learned tribunal and it has found

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explantation 2.— Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

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

depreciation. It was contended that though the PCIT stated that 100% deduction could not be given as Form 10CCB was not filed agreed that 30% deduction can be given even though Form 10CCB was not filed. The assessee specifically pointed out that along with the reply to the show cause notice, they had filed Form 10CCB before the PCIT

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

12) The first issue is the applicability of Section 28(iv) of the IT Act in the present case. Before moving further, we deem it apposite to reproduce the relevant provision herein below :- “28. Profits and gains of business or procession.-The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Profits and gains of business profession

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

depreciation. The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Siliguri Regulated Market Committee (2014) 366 ITR 51, which has been accepted by the department. Moreover, on this issue, Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed departmental appeal in the case of Rajasthan and Gujarat Charitable Foundation, Poona

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

Section 263 of the 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 EIH LIMITED

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

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

depreciation as per provisions of the Act 1961 and instead had claimed the entire lease rental as revenue expenditure. 10. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. & Anr. v. CIT reported in (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC) and a judgment of Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in Rajshree Roadways v. Union

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

depreciation as per provisions of the Act 1961 and instead had claimed the entire lease rental as revenue expenditure. 10. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. & Anr. v. CIT reported in (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC) and a judgment of Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in Rajshree Roadways v. Union

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:

12. Be that as it may, we can give the following illustration(s) which will give an example of how the “written down value” needs to be computed:- Illustration ‘A’ Rs. 13 Income from sale of tea 1000 Less : Expenses- Depreciation (100) Others (300) Business Profit & Loss A/c. 600 Income subject to charge under the Income-tax Act by application

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