PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

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

disallowances of Rs.31.76 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of provision

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

INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

43B of the Act before filing of the return by the appellant without considering the judgments reported in 284 ITR 619, 100 ITD 199(2004) 1 SOT 210, (vii) A part of interest on borrowed funds without considering the decision of jurisdictional High Court reported in 134 ITR 816 approved by the Supreme Court in 224 ITR 627 and (viii

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

43B of the Act before filing of the return by the appellant without considering the judgments reported in 284 ITR 619, 100 ITD 199(2004) 1 SOT 210, (vii) A part of interest on borrowed funds without considering the decision of jurisdictional High Court reported in 134 ITR 816 approved by the Supreme Court in 224 ITR 627 and (viii

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 :-

disallowance made by the assessing officer under Section 43B of the Act on account of provisions for leave encashment written

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

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

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 certain payment should be allowed to be claimed as an expenses only in the year in which they have been paid and not in the year in which the liability to pay such sums was incurred. 2. Whether the Learned ITAT erred in law and failed to appreciate the term, object and purpose

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S M C NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED

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

43B of the Income Tax Act, if the same has been paid after due date ? D. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by not considering that CBDT’s Circular No.22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 which clarified that the Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employees contribution to welfare funds which are governed by Section

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

disallowing 50% depreciation on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than 180 days? iv) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in not treating the 100% depreciation as revenue expense and in wrongly applying the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than

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

disallowance of 50% of additional depreciation as 50% of additional 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