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 allow- ance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior no- tice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action un- der Section 132 being resorted

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]

139(3) of the Act. Section 72A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, in the case of a demerger, the accumulated loss and the allowance for unabsorbed depreciation of the demerged company shall – a) where such loss or unabsorbed depreciation is directly relatable to the undertakings

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

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

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

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

139(1) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the deduction on account of provision for leave encashment is not allowable to the assessee in pursuance to the provision of Sec. 43B(f) of the Act. on being confronted, assessee submitted that the impugned issue is covered in favor of assessee by the judgment

TATA METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

139(1) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the deduction on account of provision for leave encashment is not allowable to the assessee in pursuance to the provision of Sec. 43B(f) of the Act. on being confronted, assessee submitted that the impugned issue is covered in favor of assessee by the judgment

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

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 . 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 be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and are not liable to tax in India. The Learned AR further argued that even under the tax treaty, since the roaming services do not make available any technical knowledge, skill, knowhow, etc., to the telecom operators which can be applied by assessee on its own and hence, the payments do not qualify

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants for generating electricity: Page 11 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 9. Revenue

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants for generating electricity: Page 11 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 9. Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants for generating electricity: Page 11 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 9. Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants for generating electricity: Page 11 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 9. Revenue

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

9. We next proceed to the second limb of proportionate interest expenditure, under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and notice that the assessee’s corresponding figures of interest income includes ₹11.38 crores against interest expenditure of ₹2.04 crores in assessment year 2011-12, ₹9.17 crores as against ₹6.01 crores in assessment year 2012-13 and ₹16.36 crores against ₹8.10 crores

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

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

9. We next proceed to the second limb of proportionate interest expenditure, under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and notice that the assessee’s corresponding figures of interest income includes ₹11.38 crores against interest expenditure of ₹2.04 crores in assessment year 2011-12, ₹9.17 crores as against ₹6.01 crores in assessment year 2012-13 and ₹16.36 crores against ₹8.10 crores

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

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

9. We next proceed to the second limb of proportionate interest expenditure, under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and notice that the assessee’s corresponding figures of interest income includes ₹11.38 crores against interest expenditure of ₹2.04 crores in assessment year 2011-12, ₹9.17 crores as against ₹6.01 crores in assessment year 2012-13 and ₹16.36 crores against ₹8.10 crores

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