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

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

depreciation claim stands reversed byhon'ble Madras high court in TCA No.55/2017 dated 14.03.2017. Their lordships have made it clear that such a deduction claim is allowable even if in case than fixed assets had been put to use in earlier assessment years. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s identical detailed reasoning extracted hereinabove in all these three assessment

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

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

depreciation claim stands reversed byhon'ble Madras high court in TCA No.55/2017 dated 14.03.2017. Their lordships have made it clear that such a deduction claim is allowable even if in case than fixed assets had been put to use in earlier assessment years. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s identical detailed reasoning extracted hereinabove in all these three assessment

EIH LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the order passed by the Learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 38(2) of the Act are very clear to disallow proportionate depreciation and hence there is no question of having two views on the impugned issue. He also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- • Decision of Pune ITAT in the case of Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale vs Adll CIT in ITA No. 1425/PN/2008 dated

V2 RETAIL LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VISHAL RETAIL LTD),KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) UNDER-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. We are in complete agreement with the arguments advanced by the Ld. DR. Needless to mention that the assessee is entitled for the benefit of having its written down value increased due to additional depreciation getting disallowed. The Ld. AO is directed to rework the written down value accordingly and give benefit

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

depreciable fixed assets which were held by it for more than three years. Capital gain arising from such sale has been offered to tax @ 20% as provided u/s 112 of the Act. The ld. AO observed that the alleged gain is short term capital gain as per the provisions of Section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA vs. SRI DEVENDRA KUMAR MANTRI , KOLKATA

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

depreciation, interest provisions, valuation of closing stock etc. are generally passed at the end of the financial year and these entries may not be found in the books on the date of search. Similarly where income are derived from sources other than 'business' or the assessee's regular sources', such transactions & income/loss derived therefrom are generally accounted at the year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA vs. SRI DEVENDRA KUMAR MANTRI , KOLKATA

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

depreciation, interest provisions, valuation of closing stock etc. are generally passed at the end of the financial year and these entries may not be found in the books on the date of search. Similarly where income are derived from sources other than 'business' or the assessee's regular sources', such transactions & income/loss derived therefrom are generally accounted at the year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. TANUJA MANTRI , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

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

112/- assessed as appellant's income for the relevant year did not represent any "unexplained money, bullion, jewellery, valuable article or any other asset", for the simple reason that no such asset had been identified either by the Ld.AO and no undisclosed asset came to light as a result of the search conducted by the Investigation Authorities. Accordingly the first

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. TANUJA MANTRI , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

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

112/- assessed as appellant's income for the relevant year did not represent any "unexplained money, bullion, jewellery, valuable article or any other asset", for the simple reason that no such asset had been identified either by the Ld.AO and no undisclosed asset came to light as a result of the search conducted by the Investigation Authorities. Accordingly the first

ANDREW YULE & CO LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, -2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

depreciation, the nil income was declared by the assessee. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.03.2013, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.7,82,89,048/- after making various additions/disallowances. The record of the said assessment came to be examined by the ld. Principal

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

112 ITR 445 (P&H) 5.7. On the issue of excess depreciation, the ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of consumer lifestyle products and lighting products interalia through co-makers. Moulds were used by the company for manufacturing of plastic products which form part of the furnished products of the company. He referred

SITARAM BHARTIA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & RESEARCH,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 11(1) of the Act which specifies only application of income and not the actual spending which has been amended to by Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2023 as stated above. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Apeejay Education Trust vs. DCIT in [2021] 130 taxmann.com

PKC SECURITIES ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-35(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): 3 | P a g e PKC Securities A.Y. 2011-12 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been

QUADRO INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

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

112 Taxman 577 , where it has been held that interest on fixed deposits received by the assessee was correctly classified by the been held that interest on fixed deposits received by the assessee was correctly classified by the been held that interest on fixed deposits received by the assessee was correctly classified by the Assessing Officer as being taxable

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

section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Depreciated Replacement Cost Method, the copies thereof were placed at pages no. 132 to 178 of the paper book. The ld. A.R. stated that during F.Y. 2017-18, the assessee had executed the final deed of conveyance , which was registered with the stamp valuation authority, who valued the leasehold land and building at Rs.211,63,11,850/- (for leasehold land

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

112 squarely applies in the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the above judgments, the order of the A.O. making an addition of Rs.3,25,00,000/- under section 68 read of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is confirmed. 5 Ground of appeal No. 6: Ground of Appeal no 6 pertains to contention of the appellant regarding that the setting

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

112 squarely applies in the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the above judgments, the order of the A.O. making an addition of Rs.3,25,00,000/- under section 68 read of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is confirmed. 5 Ground of appeal No. 6: Ground of Appeal no 6 pertains to contention of the appellant regarding that the setting