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

section 32 shall be mandatory. 30.3 Under the existing provisions, no deduction for depreciation is allowed on any motor car manufactured outside India unless it is used (i) in the business of running it on hire for tourists, or (ii) outside India in the assessee's business or profession in another country. 30.4 The Act has allowed depreciation allowance

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

Section 35, in the sub column A1 the figure debited to the statement of profit and loss has been shown as ITAT NO. 211 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 7 of 10 Rs. 219,556,764/- in column A(ii)the amount admissible (net depreciation and asset written off) Rs. 206, 111,599/- has been mentioned. In column

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

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 in the facts and circumstances of the case the Judgment and Order passed by the Learned Tribunal are liable to be set aside and the amount of Rs.2,37,83,000/- be added

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

depreciation of Rs.2,39,93,843/-. 15. The ITAT has allowed the cross objection of the assessee on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of the assessing officer for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 that the reassessment proceeding was based on change of opinion. The findings recorded by the ITAT in 11 this regard in paragraphs

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 on lorries was rejected. Consequently, the CIT came to the conclusion that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessee carried the matter on appeal to the tribunal contending that before the CIT the assessee in their reply to the notice under Section 263 of the Act had brought

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, KOL-3, KOLKATA vs. SIKARIA INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

20 of its order, concluded in paragraph 21 and 22 as under: “It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment, and should not act totally arbitrarily