SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

depreciation allowance or any other al- lowance, 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): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

depreciation as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 eligible to be carried forward and set-off under section 72A(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of resulting company, i.e. Padma Logistic and Khanij Private Limited as per follows" Hence, we are of the opinion that section 139

JCIT (OSD), CIR- 11(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOBIND SUGAR MILLS LTD. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

139(1) of the Act so as to cover itself u/s 115BAA of the Act. Further the assessee has to fulfill the conditions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 115BAA of the Act, which provides for the computation of total income. Now, the issue under consideration is arising on account of the proviso to sub- section (3) which states

M/S. BAID TRADE FINA PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2453/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 M/S. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd.,……...………Appellant S.S. Chambers, 5, C.R. Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aabcb1875A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 30Th, 2025 O R D E R

139(1). Moreover, tax was computed at the rate of 30% instead of 25% 2 M/s. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd. through the turnover of the assessee-company for the AY 2018-19 did not exceed Rs.400 crores. It is noticed that while filing the return of income since the assessee company had opted for provision of section 115BAA

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMRI HOSPITAL LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of assessee’s CO is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 115JB of the Act. It immediately filed the CO on the advice of the consultant when it was received. In the aforesaid facts & circumstances we find that there is nothing to suggest any deliberate or intentional delay in filing the appeal to the Hon’ble ITAT. The assessee had nothing to gain by delaying the application. The assessee filed

ITO,WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

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): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

H,L.G.MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,ASANSOL vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2007-08 Hlg Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant Sen Railegh Road Asansol – 713 305 West Bengal [Pan : Aabch 3927 P] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Asansol……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th , 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

depreciation to the tune of Rs.6,98,555/- liable for addition to the liable for addition to the total income chargeable to income tax. As such, I have the reason to believe total income chargeable to income tax. As such, I have the reason to believe total income chargeable to income tax. As such, I have the reason to believe

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

depreciation to the extent of Rs. 53,32,210/- being 10% of the total expenditure of Rs. 5,33,22,099/- ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in appellant's own case in DCIT -vs- EIH Limited (2015) I.T.A. No. 426/Ko1/2006 for AY 2002-03· ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT

NARAYANI LAXMI VINIYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the due date for A.Y. 2023-24. In the return, the assessee has calculated tax liability @ 22%. However, CPC calculated tax @ 40% and did not give the benefit of lower rate of tax provided under section 115BAA of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not opted for falling under this scheme by filing Form 10IC. When the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(Appeals), it was submitted by the assessee that it has filed the Narayani Laxmi Viniyog Pvt. Ltd.

depreciation allowance in respect of a block of asset which has not been given full effect to prior to the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2020, corresponding adjustment shall be made to the written down value of such block of assets as on the 1st day of April, 2019 in the prescribed manner, if the option

M/S. DULICHAND MOTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CPC,, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

depreciation duly reflected in schedule CFL and UD which was also not allowed to be adjusted against the income computed u/.s. 143(1) as the loss was allowed to be set off to the extent of Rs.8,59,529/- as was claimed ignoring the fact that as per petitioner the income was computed for Rs.8,59,529/- only and hence

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

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

Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim, the Id. AR of the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments wherein it has been held that where the additional depreciation on the newly acquired assets was allowed at reduced rate of 10% in the earlier year since they were acquired after 180 days, the remaining additional depreciation

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

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

Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim, the Id. AR of the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments wherein it has been held that where the additional depreciation on the newly acquired assets was allowed at reduced rate of 10% in the earlier year since they were acquired after 180 days, the remaining additional depreciation

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

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

Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim, the Id. AR of the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments wherein it has been held that where the additional depreciation on the newly acquired assets was allowed at reduced rate of 10% in the earlier year since they were acquired after 180 days, the remaining additional depreciation

V2 RETAIL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

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): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

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): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S LARK WIRES & INFORTECH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 145/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Acit/Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Lark Wires & Infotech Ltd. [Pan: Aaacv 9133 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

139(3) read with section 80 of the Act. The ld. AO however allowed the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year; concerned . ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 6 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year; concerned . ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 6 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TEA PROPOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year; concerned . ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 6 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made