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 of the Act 1961, held it to be a “license”. In the present set of facts the question of nomination or transfer of license is not involved. Even at the time of execution of the operating license agreement in question no amount was paid by ITC to ELEL as cost of acquisition of license. 19. M/S ELEL

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 12Th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, 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 22Nd July, 2020, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, `D Virtual Court’, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1486/Kol/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- A. Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Confirming The Decision Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Allowing Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,09,80,30,873/- On Transfer Of Government Securities After Applying Cost Inflation Index On Sale Of Government Securities & Holding He Government Securities Are Not Bond & Debentures For The Purpose Of 3Rd Proviso To Section 48 Of The Act (4Th Proviso After Amendment) Which Is Petently Wrong & Latently Irregular ?

Section 54E in respect of capital gains arising out of transfer of capital asset on which depreciation has been allowed. The decision of the Supreme Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd., (2005) 144 Taxman 855 (Bombay) stood affirmed by the decision in V.S. Dempo Company Ltd. (supra). Further, the decision of the High

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAY BEE INDUSTRIAL ALLOYS PVT LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed on the

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 21st December, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1032/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “’(i) Whether on the facts