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 @20% under Section 32(1)(iia) which was allowed by the A.O. without any enquiry? b) Whether on the facts

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

32 or sub-section (3) of section 32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section

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 on assets purchased and acquired before 31.03.2002 as because as per Section 32(1)(iia) additional depreciation can only

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

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 of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1

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

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

Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on block of assets on which 100% depreciation has been prescribed

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

1 OD-15 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA No.GA 2 of 2017 (OLD NO:GA/294/2017) In ITAT 29 of 2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA Vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : January

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which stipulates that capital/speculation expenditure is not an allowable expenditure for deduction ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in law in allowing relief to the assessee company on account of additional depreciation without considering the third proviso to section 32

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which stipulates that capital/speculation expenditure is not an allowable expenditure for deduction ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in law in allowing relief to the assessee company on account of additional depreciation without considering the third proviso to section 32

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 32 (1) (II) of the Act 1961 to contend that depreciation is admissible in respect of a license used

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. RAMKRISHNA FORGING LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 27Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv., ….For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13Th February 2019 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.(Ss).A. No. 09 (Kol) Of 2017 Relating To The A.Y. 2010-2011.. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- (I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Provision For Allowing Additional Depreciation Of Remaining 50% Is Allowable In The Subsequent Year I.E. Assessment Year 2010-11, Although The Statute Allowed The Same W.E.F. 01.04.2016 ? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred On Facts By Not Appreciating The Legal Provisions That Disallowance Of The Claim Of The Remaining Additional

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) could be allowed on same in that year, balance additional depreciation of 10% could

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

1)(vii) of the Act? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee could claim enhanced depreciation after the introduction of Explanation 5 to Section 32

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

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

depreciation to the extent of 15% which in fact should be allowed to the extent of 40% under Section 32(1

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

depreciation to the extent of 15% which in fact should be allowed to the extent of 40% under Section 32(1

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

32,55,178.54/-. In ITAT 135 of 2023 REPORTABLE Page 7 of 13 Serial No. 30 of the said Form the deduction claimed under Section 80IC was mentioned as Rs. 1,55,71,528.28/-. In Annexure A to the said Form it was mentioned that the claim of deduction under Section 80IC was in Unit IV at 100% being

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:

32,288/- for assessment year 2006-07 as ‘deemed dividend’ by misinterpreting the provisions contained in Section 2(18)(b)(B)(c) and 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 KOLKATA vs. M/S LANDIS GYR

In the result, the substantial questions of law (i)

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Soham Sen, 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 October 17, 2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.524/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering Intellectual property Rights as technical known now ? (iii) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in treating the provision of obsolescence of inventory or ascertained liability where are no cogent material is unavailable to sustainable the valuation of inventory ? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances