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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

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 section 80HHE computed under sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A), as the case may be, of that section, and subject to the conditions

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

C Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 636/Kol/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: i) Whether the Learned Tribunal failed to consider that where the deduction under Section 801C was granted for substantial expansion for an initial assessment year, the same cannot be rejected for subsequent assessment years

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? b) Whether of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, ITAT 230 of 2017 Page 3 of 14 was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,87,000/- for A.Y. 2003-04 and Rs. 1

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 (LARGE TAXPAYERS UNITS),KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

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

C” Bench Kolkata has correctly interpreted the provision of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by allowing unlimited carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for periods when there has been restrictions on such carry forward to eight Assessment Years prior to amendment made in Finance Act, 2001?” We have heard Ms. Sucharita Biswas, learned Counsel for the appellant/revenue

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

1- 4-2002 and would accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2002-03 and the subsequent years whereas in the assessee's case, the depreciation loss, which they sought to carry forward is for the assessment year 1997-98. 10. The proper manner, in which, the modification has to be understood, is to the effect that from

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

C)(D)(E) in the above table formed part of the 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

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

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:

C” Bench, Kolkata erred in giving relief at 40% of the taxable value of the Fringe Benefit as against 100% by allowing the benefit of Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules which has no relevance at all in computing the Fringe Benefit Tax? We have heard Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/Revenue