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

Section 80IC (3)(ii) of the Act and that the Assessing officer had allowed excess depreciation. The assessee furnished their

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

3. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue making the following observations- "16. We have observed that the current year's depreciation is allowed to be set-off against the income from business as well as against the other heads of income and unabsorbed depreciation in carry forward and become part

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

depreciation beyond a period of eight years, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in view of amendment made in Sub-Section 2 of Section 32 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 with effect from 1st April, 1997? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was erred

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

Section 32(I)(iia) of the Act additional depreciation is available when plant and machinery were not installed at any office premises or any residential accommodation including accommodation in the nature of guest-house. Therefore, CIT(A) held that the claim for additional depreciation 3

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 of the Act was justified? If we answer the first question of law in favour of the assessee, then the necessity to answer the second question may not arise

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

depreciation was granted by order dated 30.11.2004 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus we find that on facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4 vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/233/2018) is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th November, 2021 Appearance :-

3 “On going through the order passed by the tribunal, we find that the tribunal was considering six issues in all. The revenue has raised three substantial questions of law before us which are covered in the six issues which were before the tribunal. The first of the issues was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short

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

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

Section 143(3) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.41,615/-. In the return of income the assessee claimed 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

depreciation claim @ 30 % on lorry which are not used for hiring business ? (h) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in quashing the order under Section 263 of the 4 Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby deleting the addition made under Section 153A/143(3

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was claimed by providing the relevant depreciation schedule which was given as annexure to the computation of total income in all the three years. In this regard the tribunal noted the depreciation chart at Page No. 3

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. HINDUSTAN GUM AND CHEMICALS LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

depreciation without considering the third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) which came into effect on 1st April, 2016 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2016 without retrospective effect ? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in properly not applying the test of application of ITAT/40/2020 3

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-5, KOLKATA vs. M/S MERLIN RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN

depreciation without considering the third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) which came into effect on 1st April, 2016 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2016 without retrospective effect ? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in properly not applying the test of application of ITAT/40/2020 3

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

3) of the Act. Further it was pointed out that in the notice dated 08.10.2018 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act specific details were called for on the said issue which was furnished by the assessee by the letters dated 20.11.2018 and 03.12.2018. It was further stated that the assessing officer examined the ITAT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL-2,KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING CO.PVT LTD.

In the result, we find that question no

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

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act and allowed the deduction of Rs.6,93,39,027/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and its purported findings in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs.5

SAUMABHA DASGUPTA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) 6 KOLKATA AND ANR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. Both the assessing officer as well as the appellate authority proceeded on the ipsi dixit of the petitioner as it claimed the depreciation of 15% in the relevant assessment year. Though the contention appears to be at a subsequent stage of a proceeding that he is entitled to depreciation to the extent

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. ADITYA SARAF HUF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. Both the assessing officer as well as the appellate authority proceeded on the ipsi dixit of the petitioner as it claimed the depreciation of 15% in the relevant assessment year. Though the contention appears to be at a subsequent stage of a proceeding that he is entitled to depreciation to the extent

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

depreciation of Rs.8,04,49,959/- when 3 the nature of receipts is not in the nature of Business? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Vivek Murarka, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the treatment of the income as licence