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

5 (2) This section applies to any industrial undertaking which fulfils all the following conditions, namely:— (i) it is not formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence: Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of an industrial undertaking which is formed as a result of the re-establishment, reconstruction or revival

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

depreciation is nil; or] (iv) the amount of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHC, computed under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A), as the case may be, of that section, and subject to the conditions specified in that section; or (v) the amount of profits eligible for deduction under

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 :-

5 In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition (IA No.GA/2/2017 (Old No.GA/830/2017) is also dismissed.” Following the above decision in the assessee’s own case substantial question nos.(a) and (c) are answered against the appellant/revenue. With regard to substantial question no.(b) the Tribunal answered the said issue in favour

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-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:

5 tax. (2) In computing such income an allowance shall be made in respect of the cost of planting bushes in replacement of bushes that have died or become permanently useless in an area already planted, if such area has not previously been abandoned, and for the purpose of determining such cost, no deduction shall be made in respect

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

2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on assets used for scientific research, no depreciation is allowable under Section 32 on the same assets. The assessee submitted the reply to the show cause notice by placing reliance on several decisions of various High Courts and in particular, the decision in the case of CIT Vs. SOCIETY OF SISTERS

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

5) and 80E(IE) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and came to an erroneous decision that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciations claimed on plant and machinery relating to manufacturing since the activities does not come under the purview of the term “manufacture” under section 2

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

2 capital loss under Section 28 read with Section 36(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

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:

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 2006-07 is below

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

5 of 14 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

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

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 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). The Tribunal had taken note of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. G. S. Atwal & Company in 254 ITR 592 for the proposition that mining of coal is production. Applying the said decision the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee. This issue has also been settled

C. E. S. C. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF I.TAX, KOLKATA-II

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

2 I) Whether having regard to the settled legal proposition and having regard to the fact that the profits of the entire business and the sale proceeds were all deposited in the mixed overdraft account, the finding of the Tribunal that the sum by which the shares were purchased or the investments were made, came out of the overdraft

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

Bench: :

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the said ground was not relevant to the order of the lower authorities ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/assessee. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 8Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Sapna Das, Adv. Mr. S. Das, Adv. …For Respondent

depreciation was claimed in preceding assessment year on new plant and machinery which was put to use for less than 180 days, ignoring the reasoned order of the A.O. and relying on the assessee’s submission ? ii) WHETHER the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that forex loss is allowance as expenditure under section