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

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

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

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

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

2. We have heard Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Mr. Rites Goel and Mr. Arindam Halder, learned Advocates for the appellant assessee and Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent revenue. 3. The appellant assessee filed its return for the Assessment Year under consideration, AY 2013-14 on September

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:

2 of Section 115 WA and contended that the sub-Section starting with a non-obstente clause makes it clear that the provisions contained in the aforesaid Chapter are applicable to fringe benefits made available to the employees by an employer. She contended that no concession has been made in the statute for applicability of Rule 8. It is, therefore

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

2) was issued on 07.10.2004. Subsequently, notice under 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. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

2) the amount admissible is shown as Rs. 210, 494, 435/-. The details of the scientific research expenditure reported in Schedule 19 of the TAR has been explained as follows:- SL NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT A. Operating Expenses on SR 20,61,11,598 B. Depreciation on SR Assets 94,90,862 C. SR Asset written

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

2 section 28(IV) or 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, depends upon this?” We find that the question raised in this appeal arising from the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is concluded by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24th April, 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos.6949-6950 of 2004 (The Commissioner Vs. Mahindra

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, 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