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

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 32(2) as amended

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

iii) the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,- (a) the loss shall not include depreciation; (b) the provisions of this clause shall not apply if the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation is nil; or] (iv) the amount of profits eligible

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

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 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

iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the provisions of Section 263 of the said Act and holding that the action of the learned PCIT in the present case is not justifiable and cannot be sustained under the facts and circumstances of the present case? ITAT NO. 211 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page

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

2 depreciation, pertaining to the machinery purchased in Financial Year 2008-2009, in Assessment Year 2010-2011 was rightly made and was as per the extant provisions of law ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred on facts as well as in law in deleting the disallowance

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

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 in law in ignoring that the order under Section 263 of the Act was passed beyond the scope of the notice under Section 263 of the Act? ITAT

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

2 The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration. (i) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, disallowance of Rs.2,84,67,351/- claimed towards 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

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