PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

depreciation was raised in the assessment year 2003-2004. The Assessee claimed that it is allowable as per the provisions of Income Tax Act on block of assets under the head "intangible assets". The Assessing Officer allowed the claim for that assessment year by an order under Section 143

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

depreciation was raised in the assessment year 2003-2004. The Assessee claimed that it is allowable as per the provisions of Income Tax Act on block of assets under the head "intangible assets". The Assessing Officer allowed the claim for that assessment year by an order under Section 143

M/S TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKAA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation and amortization’ and the same was allowed in assessment ids. 143(3). and amortization’ and the same was allowed in assessment ids. 143(3). and amortization’ and the same was allowed in assessment ids. 143(3). However, as per Section

ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

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

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

Section 115BAA of the Act, the assessee adjusted the amount of fixed assets by adding back the additional depreciation claimed in the past and then computed the depreciation on the written down value (WDV) of plant and machinery. However, when the return was processed u/s 143

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 Income under Chapter VI-A. During the year, the\nassessee had shown income under the head capital gains amounting to\n*87,36,580/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO')\nnoted that the assessee had declared exempt

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

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

143(3) of the Act to the file of ld. Assessing Officer, for examining the issues raised in Clause Nos. (I) & (III) for de novo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. The assessee has taken various alternative arguments qua the separate grounds in the grounds of appeal. However, we deem it fit that all these

A T AND S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NANJANGUD,MYSORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

depreciation as per the notice u/s 263 and as assessed by the ld. AO from A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14, which were to the tune of ₹65,36,55,033/- and ₹85,55,67,855/- respectively. The ld. AR referred to page no.106, which is a copy of the order passed u/s 254/ 143(3) read with section

GLOSTER LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS KETTLEWELL BULLEN & CO. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 02.03.2021 for AY 2018-19. 2. Assessee has raised six grounds, all of which relate to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Pr. CIT for invoking revisionary 2 Gloster Ltd. AY 2018-19 proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act and passing

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue no. 1 to 4 are goes against the assessee. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. 5. The other issue no. 5 is in relation to adjustment made by AO in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act where

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue no. 1 to 4 are goes against the assessee. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. 5. The other issue no. 5 is in relation to adjustment made by AO in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act where

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

143(1) on 24.08.2022 whereby the benefit of provision of section 115BAA was denied because the form 10IC which is the prerequisite to claim benefit of section 115BAA was not filed within the due date as specified under section 139(1). Moreover, tax was computed at the rate of 30% instead of 25% 2 M/s. Baid Trade Fina

M/S. MILLENNIUM STOCK BROKING (P) LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

depreciation for A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11. The relevant portion of computation of income filed by the assesee is annexed below:- 4 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Millennium Stock Broking (P) Limited Further we notice that the case of the assessee for A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 was scrutinized under section 143

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

143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: ITA No. 2142/KOL/2018 Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.19,43,45,096/-. 2. Whether

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

143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: ITA No. 2142/KOL/2018 Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.19,43,45,096/-. 2. Whether

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

143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: ITA No. 2142/KOL/2018 Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.19,43,45,096/-. 2. Whether

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

143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: ITA No. 2142/KOL/2018 Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.19,43,45,096/-. 2. Whether