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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received by the assessee would have to be construed as a Capital Receipt and the same need not be reduced from the cost

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received by the assessee would have to be construed as a Capital Receipt and the same need not be reduced from the cost

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received by the assessee would have to be construed as a Capital Receipt and the same need not be reduced from the cost

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received by the assessee would have to be construed as a Capital Receipt and the same need not be reduced from the cost

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 under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Page 36 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. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received

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 under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Page 36 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. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received

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 under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Page 36 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. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received

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 under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Page 36 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. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received

DCIT, (IT), 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

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

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

152 (Del Trib) 4 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 The Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 (f) ACIT vs Osmanabad Janta Sah. Bank Ltd reported in (2012) 32 taxmann.com 229 (Pune Trib) (g) ACIT vs Solapur Siddeshwar Sahakari Bank in ITA Nos. 2220 & 2221 /PN/2013 dated 31.10.2014 of Pune Tribunal (h) The Solapur District Central Co-op Bank

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

152 of the Assessee’s paper book. For an assessee who was opted out of the provision of section 10B of the Act, the profits of EOU unit have to be regarded as any other business profits and the computation provision of section 70 to 72 of the Act would be applicable. In such an event the claim

EIH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

depreciation under section 32 of the Act on the said leased assets being the legal owner. 18. FOR THAT the DRP erred in applying the decision of the jurisdictional tribunal in the case of Phillips India and the Delhi High Court in the case of Rio Tinto, when both these cases have been reversed by the jurisdictional Tribunal

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

depreciation under section 32 of the Act on the said leased assets being the legal owner. 18. FOR THAT the DRP erred in applying the decision of the jurisdictional tribunal in the case of Phillips India and the Delhi High Court in the case of Rio Tinto, when both these cases have been reversed by the jurisdictional Tribunal

DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BCH ELECTRIC LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad)

152 days in filing of the appeal. This delay was stated to be neither deliberate nor intentional but was due to the pandemic circumstances prevailing at that time. We take note of the pandemic situation where the movement of people was restricted and because of such practical situation, it was always not possible to follow the time of limitation regarding

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)

152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the year earned no income on investments to the tune of Rs. 74,805.68102 lakhs (details enclosed at page 81) considered by the AO in the closing value of investment. 2.5.1 Further, the AO while considering the average value

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., 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)

152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the year earned no income on investments to the tune of Rs. 74,805.68102 lakhs (details enclosed at page 81) considered by the AO in the closing value of investment. 2.5.1 Further, the AO while considering the average value

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., 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)

152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the year earned no income on investments to the tune of Rs. 74,805.68102 lakhs (details enclosed at page 81) considered by the AO in the closing value of investment. 2.5.1 Further, the AO while considering the average value

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)

152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the year earned no income on investments to the tune of Rs. 74,805.68102 lakhs (details enclosed at page 81) considered by the AO in the closing value of investment. 2.5.1 Further, the AO while considering the average value

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

depreciation the A.O. should have enquired and verified whether the said machines were used by the assessee itself. As regards, the donation of Rs. 50 lacs the A.O. has to enquire and find out the correct facts which were not done earlier.” 8. The Principal CIT accordingly set aside the order passed by the A.O. under section 147/144/143(3) dated

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PRS METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue ITA No

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Sainia.Y 2012-13

section 32 of the Act by the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986, which came into force w.e.f 1-4-1980 the concept of usage of asset(s) for the purpose of claiming of depreciation has become redundant. Apart from the above, the law laid down by the several decisions cited by the assessee before the CIT-A clearly permits