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

2) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, carried forward unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to be set-off against profits and gains of business or profession of the subsequent year, subject to the condition that the business or profession for which depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section

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

2) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, carried forward unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to be set-off against profits and gains of business or profession of the subsequent year, subject to the condition that the business or profession for which depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section

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

RAJESH KUMAR DROLIA (HUF) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - III, KOLKATA

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

3)to (11), (11-A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business),there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment

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

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

2. We have heard Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Mr. Rites Goel and Mr. Arindam Halder, learned Advocates for the appellant assessee and Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent revenue. 3. The appellant assessee filed its return for the Assessment Year under consideration, AY 2013-14 on September

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

depreciable asset for which the assessee 2 has already claimed deduction under section 35(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act being acquired for charitable purpose is permissible under section 32 of the Act and whether the same would amount to double deduction ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.

Would be that the agricultural income itself would become liable

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Chaudhury, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Against The Order Dated 8Th October, 2015 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita Nos. 262 & 263/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

3 which levies income-tax, on the “total income” of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15). An income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the “total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in section 4(1)”. Secondly, it must be “computed in the manner

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

2) and Section 142(1) were issued. In response to such notices and the queries which were raised the assessee submitted documents and on certain discrepancies which were found the assessing officer issued show cause notice dated 23.12.2018 for which reply was submitted by the assessee on 26.12.2018 after which the assessment was completed by order dated 30.12.2018 under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LIMITED

In the result, the substantial questions of law framed

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

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to M/s. Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd. as submitted by the assessee itself ? v) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing 30% depreciation amounting to 3

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

2 i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding the additional depreciation under Section 32(I)(iia) read with proviso (B) is allowable to the assessee despite the fact that proviso (B) to Section 32(I)(iia) bars deduction under the said Section to another plant

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

2 “a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata, has erred in law in allowing the additional depreciation @20% under Section 32(1)(iia) which was allowed by the A.O. without any enquiry? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income

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

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 was issued

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

2 and find the reasons given for the inordinate delay are far from satisfactory. However, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant requested that the Court may consider the merits of the matter. The learned Counsel for respondent was also willing for such course being adopted. Therefore, we exercise the discretion and condone the delay. ITAT/173/2021 This appeal filed

M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for ten consecutive assessment years i.e., nine subsequent consecutive years after the initial Assessment Year 2004-05 in which deduction was allowed for the first time? ii) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata ought not to reject the cross- objections filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year

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

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

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 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by not considering the decision

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

3)read with Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the CIT rejected the contention of the assessee that no incriminating evidence related to transactions (sales) with Shalimar Hatcharies Limited and disallowance of excess depreciation of lorries was found during the course of search assessment. CIT was of the opinion that such contention is not based upon facts and therefore