ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011- 12 are accordingly allowed”. 4. It is also observed that the issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ERPC charges was also decided by the Tribunal dated October

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011- 12 are accordingly allowed”. 4. It is also observed that the issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ERPC charges was also decided by the Tribunal dated October

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

iia) since it had put its corresponding fixed assets to use in earlier assessment year(s) than installation thereof in the relevant previous year only Mr. Shankar refers to this tribunal’s recent decision in Welspun Corporation vs. DCIT and vice versa ITA No.5370 & 5722/Mum/2015 dated 13.12.2019 accepting the Revenue’s identical plea. We find no merit either in Revenue

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

iia) since it had put its corresponding fixed assets to use in earlier assessment year(s) than installation thereof in the relevant previous year only Mr. Shankar refers to this tribunal’s recent decision in Welspun Corporation vs. DCIT and vice versa ITA No.5370 & 5722/Mum/2015 dated 13.12.2019 accepting the Revenue’s identical plea. We find no merit either in Revenue

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

iia) since it had put its corresponding fixed assets to use in earlier assessment year(s) than installation thereof in the relevant previous year only Mr. Shankar refers to this tribunal’s recent decision in Welspun Corporation vs. DCIT and vice versa ITA No.5370 & 5722/Mum/2015 dated 13.12.2019 accepting the Revenue’s identical plea. We find no merit either in Revenue

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1)(iia) of the Act. Thus, the additional ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 32. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose. Coming to ITA No.207/Kol/2014 for A.Y. 10-11. 33. First interconnected issue raised by assessee in grounds No. 2 to 7 of this appeal is that

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I,KOKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The CIT was of the opinion that the assessing was not engaged in the business of manufacturing or production or any article or thing or in the business of generation or "generation and distribution" of power during the year under consideration and it is not eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

32(1)(iia) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:-“ “4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10,51,944/- claimed by the assessee as additional depreciation without increasing in installed capacity

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

32(1)(iia) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:-“ “4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10,51,944/- claimed by the assessee as additional depreciation without increasing in installed capacity

DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2041/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-10 Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 3739 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

32(1)(iia) read with Rule-5 (New Appendix-1) 3.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the ld DR vehemently relied on the order of the ld AO without rebutting the findings of the ld CITA and case laws relied upon thereon. In response, the ld AR vehemently relied on the order of the ld CITA

JCIT (OSD), CC-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S G. S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

section 145A shall be assessed as “ income from other sources” in the ear in which it is received. Thus, from the above Circular which is binding on the Income Tax Authority, it is clear that the impugned interest cannot be taxed on received basis for the years prior to the AYs 2010-11. Therefore the issue of charging the income

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S APEEJAY TEA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1736/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle – 4(1) Kolkata...................................………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Apeejay Tea Ltd.....................…………………………..................................................Respondent ‘Apeejay House’, Block-A, 15, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aaeca 1925 D] Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Kolkata Dated 30.06.2016. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 31,64,411/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Balance Additional Depreciation.

32(iia) is a onetime benefit given to encourage industrialisation and on the plant and machinery purchased and put to use in the 2nd half of the immediately preceding year, the assessee can claim half of the additional depreciation of 20% in the next assessment year. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court, we uphold