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 from A.Y.1997-98 upto the A.Y. 2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever

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 from A.Y.1997-98 upto the A.Y. 2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever

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

13 deduction under Section 80IC in respect of Unit IV being the 7th year, however they have not filed Form 10CCB in support of their claim during the course of assessment proceedings. According to the PCIT, the assessee was entitled to claim only 30% deduction under Section 80IC (3)(ii) of the Act and that the Assessing officer had allowed

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

13. Before we proceed to examine the terms and nature of contract involved in the present appeal and rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act, 1961 as under:- Section 2(14) of The Income Tax Act 1961:- “(14)"capital asset" means— (a)property of any kind

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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

depreciation is nil; or] (iv) the amount of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHC, computed under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A), as the case may be, of that section, and subject to the conditions specified in that section; or (v) the amount of profits eligible for deduction under

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

13) On a plain reading of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act, prima facie, it appears that for the applicability of the said provision, the income which can be taxed shall arise from the business or profession. Also, in order to invoke the provision of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act, the benefit which is received

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:

13. Analysing the above two charts, we find that at the end of computation the income chargeable to tax by applying rule 8 comes to Rs.240. Under Illustration ‘A’, the normal depreciation is Rs.100 which is deductible from Rs.1,000 being the income from sale of tea. On the other hand, under Illustration ‘B’, we have taken 40 per cent

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

13, 2021. (Via Video Conference) Appearance: Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Asok Bhowmick, Adv. … for the appellant/Revenue Mr. Pronit Bag, Adv. Mr. Soumyadeep Biswas, Adv. … for the respondent/assessee The Court : This appeal by the Revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 21st October, 2016 passed

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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

depreciation allowance. The assessing Officer will take that all the allowances, deductions, exemption, if any has been availed by the appellant during the year and then the net profit chargeable to tax is Rs. 1,79,98,687/-. The net profit is to be assessed as income at Rs. 1,79,98,687/-. Ground No. 10 that without prejudice