BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

52 results for “TDS”+ Section 249(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai321Delhi264Chennai131Bangalore108Karnataka89Cochin73Raipur69Chandigarh59Ahmedabad54Kolkata52Jaipur47Surat46Hyderabad30Pune30Indore23Visakhapatnam17Lucknow17Amritsar9Cuttack7Rajkot6Agra4Varanasi4Guwahati3Nagpur3Jodhpur3Telangana2Panaji2Kerala1Patna1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Addition to Income31Section 14A29TDS28Section 4024Deduction22Disallowance22Section 143(3)21Section 201(1)20Section 14418Condonation of Delay

COMANTRA E-SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.(CPC), TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 772/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 234ESection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts as well as before

COMANTRA E-SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.(CPC), TDS, BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

15
Limitation/Time-bar13
Section 234E11

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 771/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 234ESection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts as well as before

COMANTRA E-SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.(CPC), TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 770/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 234ESection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts as well as before

HITT HOLLAND INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY B. V. vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 574/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic -Vs.- D.D.I.T. (Intl.T)-1, Technology B.V., Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabch 5694 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ar For The Respondent : Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

249,869 TOTAL 963,749 43,050,675 4,305,067 Further, while passing the assessment order, the Ld. AO has observed that as per Sale of Goods Act, 1932 ('SOG Act'), sale is concluded at the time of its acceptance and that' Acceptance' does not mean mere receipt of goods but means checking the goods to ascertain whether they

GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 618/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 618/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Graphite India Limited,.........................Appellant 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700016 [Pan: Aaacc0457C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 200ASection 201Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

TDS Aaykar Bhawan, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (UP) ['Ld. AO'] for Assessment Year 2020-21on 28-10-2019. 2.0 In terms of the provisions of Section 249(2) of the Act, an appeal before Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] against the intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act needs to be filed within thirty days from the date

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. MARKETING DIVISION (EASTERN REGION),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 58 (TDS)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1517/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

section 197 of the Act. Therefore, argument ITA No.1517-1519/Kol/2009 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 Indian Oil Corpn Ltd. Marketing Divn. (E) Region v. DCIT Cir-58 (TDS0 Kol. Page 6 raised by assessee cannot be accepted that payment is not in the nature of work contracts and therefore not allowable due to non deduction of TDS. In view

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

249(3) read with section 250. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016. In this Circular, the CBDT has provided that mandatory filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) electronically would be made applicable from 15.06.2016. In other words, prior to 15.06.2016 if any appeal has been filed

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 645/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

249(3) read with section 250. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016. In this Circular, the CBDT has provided that mandatory filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) electronically would be made applicable from 15.06.2016. In other words, prior to 15.06.2016 if any appeal has been filed

OCEAN MARINE ENVIRONMENT COATINGS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS, WARD - 2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 295/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249(2)

4. In this respect, Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has electronically filed the TDS statement. In the present digital and electronic regime of tax administration, filing as well as processing and the communication thereof are being done electronically, in digital form. The orders for processing of statements are served on the assessee electronically. Assessee is required to be diligent

OCEAN MARINE ENVIRONMENT COATINGS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS, WARD - 2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 296/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249(2)

4. In this respect, Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has electronically filed the TDS statement. In the present digital and electronic regime of tax administration, filing as well as processing and the communication thereof are being done electronically, in digital form. The orders for processing of statements are served on the assessee electronically. Assessee is required to be diligent

KANOI TEA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

249 of the Act, which provides power to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon’ble High Courts as well as before

ALLAHABAD BANK, NAKTALA BRANCH,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, TDS RG.57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed for statistical

ITA 1384/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1384/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Allahabad Bank, Vs. Jcit(Tds), Range-57, 10B, Middleton Row, 8Th Floor, Naktala Branch, 364/23A, Nsc Bose Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700040 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cala 06329 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tapas Dutta, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.138/Cit(A)-Xvi/Jcit,R-57/13-14/Kol, Dated 28.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Jt.Commissoner Of Income Tax-Tds (Ao),U/S.272A(2)(K)/274 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Quarterly Tds Returns Late Therefore The Assessing Officer (Tds) Imposed Penalty On The Assessee U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Act At Rs.50,336/- 3. The Captioned Appeal Is Time Barred By 32 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Said Appeal. The Assessee Explained The Reasons For Delay Stating That Assessee Is A Schedule Bank

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Dutta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT
Section 1Section 206ASection 249Section 272Section 272A(2)(k)

4. Aggrieved from the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who has confirmed the order passed by the AO observing the followings :- “On the basis of the above facts, it is held that the assessee presented the appeal 50 days beyond the date of limitation specified in sub-section(2) of section

SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

TDS credit of INR 1,56,249.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a listed company engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing and sale of storage devices namely audio cassettes, CDs etc. and also in production of films/TV serials. Assessee filed its original return of income on 28.11.2014 which was revised on 22.03.2016 reporting

M/S. STAR TRACK AGENCY (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1766/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 1766/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Star Track Agency Pvt. Ltd..............................…………………………………..Appellant 23A, N.S. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaecs 4100 N] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….................Respondent Ward 3(2) Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta) Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.K. Das, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) -2, Kolkata Dated 05.06.2017 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Bad In Law. Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice The Assessment Was Made U/S 144/147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. For That The Disallowance Of Rs. 10,34,506/- As Unverified Purchase (20% Of Purchase Amounting To Rs. 51,72,532/-) Is Arbitrary & Bad In Law. Please Delete The Addition. 3. For That The Tds Claim Of Rs. 5,75,249/- Was Made By The Assessee But The Ld. A.O. Allowed Of Rs. 4,88,302/- Which Is Arbitrary. 4. For That The Ld. Assessing Officer Arbitrarily Added 20% Of The Purchase Without Considering The Prayer Of The Assessee For The Addition @ 2% (N.P.) On Unverified Purchase Of Rs. 51,72,532/-.

Section 144

TDS claim of Rs. 5,75,249/- was made by the assessee but the Ld. A.O. allowed of Rs. 4,88,302/- which is arbitrary. 4. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer arbitrarily added 20% of the purchase without considering the prayer of the assessee for the addition @ 2% (N.P.) on unverified purchase of Rs. 51,72,532/-. 2 I.T.A

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CREATIVE TECHNOTEX (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2035/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Vs M/S. Creative Technotex (P.) Ltd., Dcit, Circle-10(1), 73/29. Golf Club Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700033. Pan-Aadcc9167C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Respondent By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing 08.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

4. The contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) in first appellate proceedings was that all the relevant details of incurring such sales promotion expenses filed in the assessment proceedings and the AO never doubled the genuineness of the expenditure relating to sales promotion. Further, the TDS was deducted on commission paid to C& F agents and no TDS

JAY BHARAT CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 883/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.883 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.Dr
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 201Section 40

4. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in Civil Engineering Construction. The return of income for the Asst Year 2009-10 was filed by the assessee on 29.9.2009 declaring total income of Rs 27,49,701/-. The ld AO observed from the details of ‘Piece Rate Wages’ furnished by the assessee

BINOD MOKTAN,KALIMPONG vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), KALIMPONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 353/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.353/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Binod Moktan……...……………………..…………………....Appellant Upper Pedong, P.O Pedong, Kalimpong District, W.B. 734311. [Pan: Aripm6300Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Kalimpong……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Received Contractual Receipts Of Rs.51,04,000 From M/S. Gajmer Works During The A.Y. 2018-19 & Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Amounting To Rs.54,040/- Was Also Made On The Said Receipts. However, The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Said Assessment Year. Subsequently, Proceedings Were Initiated Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed A Return Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,92,770/-. However, The Assessing Officer Completed The

Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250

TDS) amounting to Rs.54,040/- was also made on the said receipts. However, the assessee did not file its return of income for the said assessment year. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a notice under Section 148 was issued. In response, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs.4

NEHA HRIDAYA,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2462/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2462/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Neha Hridaya,…………………………….…..………Appellant Ic Viceroy Duke Gardens, Raghunathpur, Kolkata-700059, W.B. [Pan:Aofph7597L] -Vs.- Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru,…..……………………..Respondent Karnataka, Pin Code No. 560500

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)

section 249(2) of the Act. She further submitted that the she was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Due to that, the ld. CIT(Appeals) decided the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay

PATAKA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA PRESENTLY CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 201(1)Section 40

section 4 Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd. AY 2010-11 147 needs to be satisfied i.e. the escapement of income is due to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts during the assessment. 5.1. According to him, in the reasons to believe recorded by the ld. AO, no where

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. SHRI PINTU BHATTACHARJEE, BURDWAN

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA 1/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Acit, Circle-1, V/S. Shri Pintu Bhattacharjee Aayakar Bhavan, Court Memari Old Lic Math, G.T. Compound,Burdwan- Road, Memari, 713101 Burdwan-713146 [Pan No.Adepb 8283 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent S.M.S. Tauheed, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asamsol’S Order Dated 30.10.2014 In Case No.178/C.I.T.(A)/Asl/Acit/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3)/144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Identical Former Grievance Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts On The Deleting Disallowance / Additions Of ₹39,94,137/- Pertaining To Higher Depreciation Rate Claimed On Transmit Complete Mixer & Loaders & Also Granting Relief Of ₹4,73,249/- Regarding Lower Loader Machine; Respectively. We Notice That Cit(A) Discuss In On This Issue Reads As Under:- “6. Ground 2 Is Against Not Granting Depreciation At Higher Rates For Concrete Mixers & Payloaders, Vibrator Soil Compactor Etc. Is Settled In The Cases Reported In Vikram Ispat Vs. State Of Maharastra Air 2003 Bombay 498 P

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

249/- regarding lower loader machine; respectively. We notice that CIT(A) discuss in on this issue reads as under:- “6. Ground 2 is against not granting depreciation at higher rates for Concrete Mixers and Payloaders, vibrator soil compactor etc. is settled in the cases reported in Vikram Ispat vs. State of Maharastra AIR 2003 Bombay 498 P ITA No.01/Kol/2015 A.Y.2010-11