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

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) 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 by the assessee on 26.12.2018 after which the assessment was completed by order dated 30.12.2018 under 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

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

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

depreciable asset for which the assessee 2 has already claimed deduction under section 35(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act being acquired for charitable purpose is permissible under section 32 of the Act and whether the same would amount to double deduction ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred

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-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

2 and find the reasons given for the inordinate delay are far from satisfactory. However, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant requested that the Court may consider the merits of the matter. The learned Counsel for respondent was also willing for such course being adopted. Therefore, we exercise the discretion and condone the delay. ITAT/173/2021 This appeal filed

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

2 i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding the additional depreciation under Section 32(I)(iia) read with proviso (B) is allowable to the assessee despite the fact that proviso (B) to Section 32(I)(iia) bars deduction under the said Section to another plant

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

143(3)read with Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the CIT rejected the contention of the assessee that no incriminating evidence related to transactions (sales) with Shalimar Hatcharies Limited and disallowance of excess depreciation of lorries was found during the course of search assessment. CIT was of the opinion that such contention is not based upon facts and therefore

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

2 The revenue has raised for the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee claimed depreciation on tools & tackles @20% while including them under the head “Inventories” though no depreciation U/s.32(1) is allowable on inventories which include only goods for purchase and sales? (b) Whether

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

2. This appeal was admitted by order dated 08.06.2018, on the following substantial questions of law:- “[i] Whether the decision of the Tribunal in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed under 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

2. This appeal was admitted by order dated 08.06.2018, on the following substantial questions of law:- “[i] Whether the decision of the Tribunal in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed under 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

2 desirous of hearing the merits of the matter and also put such a suggestion to the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. As both the learned counsel have agreed, we exercise the discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay being IA No.GA/1/2021 is allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue

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

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.

2) of the Income Tax Act and that provision for bad and doubtful debts is not included in explanation (a) to (f) ? (b) 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.80 Lacs made to book profit