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. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed before us is not required to be answered in this appeal as it has been decided in favour of the revenue by the Tribunal themselves. So far as other direction given by the Tribunal to the assessing officer to rework the written down value on account

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.

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

Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessing officer notes that on perusal of the 3 return of income filed by the assessee they have earned dividend net income to the tune of Rs.1,46,349/- which is exempted from tax and assessee has disallowed Rs.33,32

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowance on depreciation and thus the net profit came to 5 Rs.77,41,629/-. The loss carried forward by the assessee from previous year was Rs.2,88,71,747/- and after adjusting the aforesaid net profit, the loss carried forward for the next year was Rs.2,11,30,118/-. In the admitted facts of the case, the respondent assessee

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 Act. Thus, the tribunal concluded that the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings

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 and thus disallowing

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

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 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KARTICK BOSE

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 263 of the Act has proceeded based on conjecture and there is no finding recorded that the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected. Furthermore, the specific issue raised by the assessee that the documents and details were furnished before the assessing officer was not found to be incorrect. Therefore, we are of the view that the tribunal

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper books. Both the learned counsel for the parties jointly state that the ITAT has followed its earlier order passed in earlier assessment years on the same controversy inter parties. We find from paragraphs 8.1 to 8.3 of the impugned order

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

disallowance of 50% of additional depreciation claimed in Assessment year 2010-2011, ignoring the fact that the proviso for allowing the remaining 50% of allowable additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year, came into the statute with effect from 01.04.2016 and thus, it was not there for assessment year 2010-2011 ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing Counsel

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S D R STEEL CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

Appeal are allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ...For The Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax |Act, 1961(The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated March 30, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata In

Section 43B of the Act are squarely 3 applicable on the alleged sum and the assessee as rightly claimed it as deduction against income for AY 2013-14. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances, find that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the AO, as the alleged sum of Rs.12,32

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital