EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption available to the depreciable asset under Section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

depreciable asset and, therefore, the exemption available to the depreciable asset under Section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction

M/S. TOPGRAIN MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 M/S Top Grain V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, 7Th Management Pvt Ltd., Beriwala Building, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Floor, 1/1 Meridith Street, Bhawan,P-7, Kolkata-700 072 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaact 9889 K] Kolkat-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

exempt u/s. 10 of IT Act, 1961, therefore, depreciation claimed on factory building utilized for earning exempt agricultural income is required

ITO, WARD - 6(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL MANUFACTURING CO. PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2250/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

exemption in calculation of MAT is not acceptable. Because, the profit shown in profit and loss account of Rs. 3,15,48,276/- is including business income of tea, profit on tea manufactured from bought leaf, income of other heads such as loss on sale of depreciable

STEWART HOLL (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

exemptions or depreciation of the value of the capital assets from taxable income. Therefore, building which have not been specifically

STEWART HOLL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2331/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Stewart Holl (India) Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecs 3091 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

exemptions or depreciation of the value of the capital assets from taxable income. Therefore, building which have not been specifically

JCIT (OSD), CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KHAITAN INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation in Agricultural Division. The appellant has submitted that its claim of exemption of Rs. 12,56,009/- had been

JCIT (OSD), CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KHAITAN INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation in Agricultural Division. The appellant has submitted that its claim of exemption of Rs. 12,56,009/- had been

ST. PETER SCHOOL,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 St. Peters School Ito, Ward-2(1), Exemption, Na, Mira Bai Road B Zone, Durgapur. Vs Durgapur, Burdwan-713204 (Pan: Aaatb9527D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subho Chakraborty, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Additional Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

exempt from income tax with the approval validity upto the AY 2026-27. The assessee’s return was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued. During the scrutiny proceeding, it was observed that assessee had claimed depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J.J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 201/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle-12 , -Vs.- M/S. J.J.Exporters Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6722 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri R.N.Bajoria, Shri A.Gupta & Shri S.Jhajharia, Ar Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 25.11.2011 Of C.I.T.(A)-Xii, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2007-08. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Revenue Reads As Follows :- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition U/S. 36(1)(Iii) Made On The Basis Of Auditor'S Certificate In The Form 3Cd. “

depreciation as per Income Tax Act) income of which exempted u/s 10B” 2 M/s. J.J.Exporters Ltd. A.Yr.2007-08 According

ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Depreciation in its P/L A/c to earn investment income (exempt income).These expenses are business expenses and are not admissible

TARASAFE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1)(ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled

WHITEPIN TIE-UP LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

depreciation expenses of Rs.84,333/- cannot be held as relating to earring exempt income. The A.O. is directed to verify

SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the issue of disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets and loss on sale

WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Depreciation 234.795,773 Other expenses 1,122,263,385 Prior period expenses 641,828,404 (lncrease)/Decrease in Cost of Work-in-Progress (469,800,831) Page 12 of 15 I.T.A. No.: 266/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. 5,996,104,331 Profit before Tax (A-B) 244,466,462 Less; Dividend Income Exempt

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Depreciation Claim, ii. Duty Drawback, iii. Refund\nClaim, iv. Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income and v.\nDeduction from Total

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Depreciation Claim, ii. Duty Drawback, iii. Refund\nClaim, iv. Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income and v.\nDeduction from Total

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1055& C.O. No.73/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Universal Cables Ltd. 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu3547P (Appellant/Revenue) .. (Respondent/ Cross-Objector)

depreciation in two years. Further clause (iia) is in the nature of incentive or exemption provision and the courts have

SATYENDRANATH BOSE EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. WARD 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2339/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Satyendranath Bose Educational Vs Ward-1(3), Exemption, Kolkata & Social Welfare Trust, 19/2/5, Amar Chakraborthy Rd. Ac Road Khagra, Berhampur-742103 Pan No. : Aaots 9288 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Altaf Husssain, Addl.Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 24.09.2024, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao Denying The Benefit Of Exemption Claimed U/S 10(23C) (Iiiad) Of The Act. 3. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Failed To Correctly Appreciate That The Assessee Was Indeed Maintaining & Aiding Education Institutions & It Existed Solely For Educational Purposes Without Any Motive For Profit & Since Its Annual Receipts Did Not Exceed The Limit Of Rs.1 Crores, It Had Rightly Claimed Exemption U/S 10(23C) (Iiiad) Of The Act.

depreciation of Rs 19,73,235/- to the total income of the assessee even though the said amount was not claimed as expenses by the assessee. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the denial of benefit of exemption