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

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

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA TEA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

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

depreciation only to the extent of 40% was to be treated as actually allowed and to the extent the income was treated as agricultural income by virtue of the same being exempt

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

depreciation of Rs. 1,27,77,456/-. The commercial production at the EOU started in the previous year relevant to AY. 2004-05. Accordingly, the assessee became eligible for exemption

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

DCIT, CC-XIX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ATHA MINES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2012-13

Depreciation as per IT Rules Rs.4,19,309/- Dividend exempt u/s 10(34) Rs.1,54,723/- Rs. 5,74,032/- (-) Rs.14

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

depreciation of Rs.12,61,664/- claimed on building whereas the assessee company failed to substantiate its claim properly and had no approvals / permits from various authorities to use such a premise for guest house. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

depreciation of Rs.12,61,664/- claimed on building whereas the assessee company failed to substantiate its claim properly and had no approvals / permits from various authorities to use such a premise for guest house. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed

M/S INTEGRATED EDUCATION RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is allowed while the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M.Balaganesh

Exemption-1, Kolkata who was the Assessing Officer (AO) of the Assessee completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, determining total income of the Assessee at Rs.41,615/-. The Assessee had claimed depreciation

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