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 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by disregarding that the assessment order of the assessee officer in allowing excess carry forwarded of unabsorbed 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

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011- 12 by holding the assessment orders for these assessment years passed by the assessing officer as not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue as the direction of Pr CIT for making additions on account of additional depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

The appeal stands dismissed

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

depreciation at the rate of 20% under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The substantial question which needs to be considered is whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 263

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

depreciation of Rs.68,43,455/- is allowable expenditure against receipts of the assessee during the previous year. The assessing officer has allowed the claim made by the assessee while completing the assessment by order dated 30th June, 2014. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] exercised his power under Section 263

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed

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

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 2 1961 on the issue of assessee’s claim of additional depreciation of Rs.19

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 was contrary to law or not? (ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal in permitting deduction of lease rent for vehicle obtained on lease by the Assessee was perverse

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 was contrary to law or not? (ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal in permitting deduction of lease rent for vehicle obtained on lease by the Assessee was perverse

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. KOTHARI GLOBAL LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by disregarding that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the crucial aspect as to whether the waived loan in question was taken for trading purpose or for acquisition of a capital asset or for day to day running of the business since the question as to whether the waived loan in question