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 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

22,80,02,789/- and Rs. 1,48,84,39,000/- respectively already claimed u/s 32 of the Act as not double claim of depreciation? b) Whether of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, ITAT 230 of 2017 Page 3 of 14 was justified in reversing the finding

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-I, KOL vs. M/S. JINDAL INDIA LTD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 16Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th November, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.368 & 369/Kol/2010 Years 2005- 06 & 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act ? We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learner Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick and Ms. Swapna Das, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee. It is not in dispute that the tax effect for the assessment year

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

22,49,83,589/- amounting to Rs. 1,79,98,687/- subject to no depreciation allowance. The assessing Officer will take that all the allowances, deductions, exemption, if any has been availed by the appellant during the year and then the net profit chargeable to tax is Rs. 1,79,98,687/-. The net profit is to be assessed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.

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

depreciation loss beyond the period of eight years in contravention to the amendment made in sub-section 2 of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act introduced by the Finance Act, 1996 with effect from 1st April, 1997 ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order

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 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

22 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/1/2021 In ITAT/70/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KOLKATA VS. M/S. BOULEVARD SERVICES PVT. LTD. IA NO.GA/2/2021 In ITAT/70/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KOLKATA VS. M/S. BOULEVARD SERVICES PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM