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

14 of 2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with, the unabsorbed 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

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

14 3. The assessee company filed its return of loss on 21.10.2003 disclosing the total loss of Rs. 97,36,94,328/- which was processed under section 143(1) on 08.01.2004. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny and accordingly notice under section 143(2) was issued on 07.10.2004. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) along with a questionnaire

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

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, KOL-III vs. M/S. KOTHARI GLOBAL LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

14) Another important issue which arises is the applicability of the Section 41(1) of the IT Act. The said provision is re-produced as under:: “41. Profits chargeable to tax.-(1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee (hereinafter referred

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

14 was the 2nd year of substantial expansion and there was no dispute with respect to the initial year of substantial expansion being Assessment Year 2012-13? iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act? iv) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified

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:

14. In CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P). Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC), the question which came up before the Supreme Court was whether a capital loss could be determined and carried forward, in accordance with the provisions of section 24 of the Act of 1922, when the provisions of section 12B were not applicable during the course of assessment

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

14,38,420/- and the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) were issued. In response to such notices and the queries which were raised the assessee submitted documents and on certain discrepancies which were found the assessing officer issued show cause notice dated 23.12.2018 for which reply was submitted

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,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

depreciation claim @ 30 % on lorry which are not used for hiring business ? (h) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in quashing the order under Section 263 of the 4 Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby deleting the addition made under Section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in absence of incriminating

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

14,99,264/- as against the disclosed total income of Rs.85,49,460/-. The assessing officer made addition in income of Rs.9,29,49,804/-, as under: i) On account of inflated/bogus purchase from eight parties but notices under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961: Rs.1,56,90,244/-. ii) On account of not producing eight parties

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 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 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S BOULEVARD SERVICE PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue fails on the ground

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : February 14, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Mr. S.N. Dutta, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant/Revenue & Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Duly Assisted By Ms. Swapna Das, Learned Counsel For The Respondent/Assessee. There Is A Delay Of 816 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Respondent Has Filed Affidavit-In-Opposition Vehemently Opposing The Delay. On

14, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv. … for the appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. … for the respondent The Court : We have heard Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, duly assisted by Ms. Swapna Das, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. There is a delay