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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

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); A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that if the assessing officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

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); A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that if the assessing officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped 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

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

DEEPAK BAJAJ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Deepak Bajaj Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata 77, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Gd. Vs. Floor, Kalighat, Kolkata- 700026. Pan: Aeepb 5525 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dilip Chatterjee, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)- 12, Kolkata Vide Order No. 40/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Ward-40(1)/2014-15 Dated 09.06.2016 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(1)/147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

depreciation, on account of personal use. 3. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the same by observing that assessee has failed to submit documentary evidence and explanation in support of the grounds raised in his appeal. 4. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before adverting on the appeal, we note that

DCIT, CC - X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. STRASSENBURG PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S Vishwanethra Ravi

depreciation schedule, which is also available at page 28 of the APB. Regarding pages 95 to 98 of the APE, wherein it was shown that the assessment for the A.Y 2005-06 was completed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act and AO found no new material therein. Further, he argued that notice dated 31-03-2010 issued

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2009-10

depreciation.........amendment made by Finance Act, 2016 [ proviso to Section 32 (1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961] is retrospective.” the I.T. Act, 1961] is retrospective.” 5.1. The ld. D/R could not bring to our notice any contrary decision/judgment in this The ld. D/R could not bring to our notice any contrary decision/judgment in this The ld. D/R could

M/S PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

149(1)(b) of the Act, constitutes a jurisdictional error on the part of the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a reference to a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Commissioner of IncomeTax v. Aparna Agency (P.) Ltd.1 to contend that the provisions of section 192(B) of the Act do not provide

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Depreciation - Additional depreciation - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether coal mining is production of coal and, therefore , assessee engaged in mining of coal, would be entitled to additional depreciation on survey instrument acquired by it during relevant year - Held, yes [Para 6.3.] [In favour of assessee]" 7. I find that in the instant

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Depreciation - Additional depreciation - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether coal mining is production of coal and, therefore , assessee engaged in mining of coal, would be entitled to additional depreciation on survey instrument acquired by it during relevant year - Held, yes [Para 6.3.] [In favour of assessee]" 7. I find that in the instant

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Depreciation - Additional depreciation - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether coal mining is production of coal and, therefore , assessee engaged in mining of coal, would be entitled to additional depreciation on survey instrument acquired by it during relevant year - Held, yes [Para 6.3.] [In favour of assessee]" 7. I find that in the instant

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

149 of the Act] the AO’s action of recording reason without having in his possession ‘information in the form of Appraisal Report’ is per se bad in law. Therefore, Shri Akkal contended that since the AO had issued the notice u/s 148 on 31-03-2016 without there being any material available to him on the basis of which

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

149/- under section 10A of the Act. Accordingly, assessment in this case is being re-opened under the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after obtaining necessary approval from the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-2, Kolkata. 6. In the re-assessment proceedings the assessee took a stand that deduction

ITO, WARD-11(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SENCO GOLD IMPEX PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 10AA. Ground no 1 of the revenue’s appeal is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In ground no 2, the revenue has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,54,476/- made by the AO on account of making charges of 22 carat gold ornaments. 9. From

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABORATORIES GRIFFON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

depreciation. It has claimed deduction under section 30(a) (i). Once the assessee's claim falls within that provision there is no question of considering the question of 11 Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 applicability of section 32. Consequently, the question that has been framed is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

Section 43(1) is held to be unjustified in law. Accordingly the disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years