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

143(3) for the 2nd year of expansion namely, AY 2013-14 granted 100% deduction under Section 80IC of the Act. It is thereafter the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata (PCIT) issued notice dated December 4, 2017 under Section 263 of the Act alleging that the assessee has claimed 100% ITAT 135 of 2023 REPORTABLE Page

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

143(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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA PVT LTD

Accordingly the appeal ITAT/173/2021 fails and is dismissed

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

depreciation was granted by order dated 30.11.2004 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus we find that on facts

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

143(3) of the Act. Further it was pointed out that in the notice dated 08.10.2018 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act specific details were called for on the said issue which was furnished by the assessee by the letters dated 20.11.2018 and 03.12.2018. It was further stated that the assessing officer examined the ITAT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4.KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED

The appeal stands disposed of on

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

Section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of the additional depreciation on the plant and machinery newly added

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) KOLKATA vs. INTEGRATED EDUCATION & RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENGINEERING & MAN

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 28Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No. 620/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration. I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Tribunal Erred In Law In Not Considering That Allowing Depreciation In Respect Of A Depreciable Asset For Which The Assessee

Section 143(3) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.41,615/-. In the return of income the assessee claimed depreciation

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 at the rate of 30% on the lorries. In the opinion of the CIT the issues are clearly linked with the seized document and were required to be examined and verified by the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceeding under Section 143

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S. BRIDGE & ROOF CO. (INDIA) LIMITED

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

depreciation as claimed by the assessee?” We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-IV, was justified in invoking his power under Section 263 of the Act to set aside

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in setting aside revisional order of the Commissioner on the question of disallowability maintenance expenses and depreciation

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in setting aside revisional order of the Commissioner on the question of disallowability maintenance expenses and depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

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

depreciation of Rs.8,04,49,959/- when 3 the nature of receipts is not in the nature of Business? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Vivek Murarka, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the treatment of the income as licence

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 4Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv.

section 154 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.K. Venkatachalam Vs. Bombay Dying and Mfg. Co. Ltd. (34 ITR 143)? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax, Appellate Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.5.84 crores made

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