DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

depreciable assets can be set off against long term capital loss u/s 74 of the Act. 5.3. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court supra , we hold that the assessee is indeed entitled to set off the brought forward long term capital loss of Rs 9,77,54,843/- against

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

depreciation also. Considering the factual position, we are of the view that order passed by the ld CIT (A) does not contain any infirmity. Therefore, we confirm the order of ld.CIT(A). 6.4 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue on this issue is dismissed. 7. The third ground relates to Irrecoverable advance

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

depreciation also. Considering the factual position, we are of the view that order passed by the ld CIT (A) does not contain any infirmity. Therefore, we confirm the order of ld.CIT(A). 6.4 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue on this issue is dismissed. 7. The third ground relates to Irrecoverable advance

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation are different. The positive adjustments possible in the book profit do not include the loan redemption reserve fund or such other reserves. Therefore, in view of the facts of the case and the ratio laid down in the reported cases, in my view, no adjustment was called for under sec. 115JB in respect of the loan redemption reserve

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

194H have no applicability for such payments and consequently, the question of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise. I further find that the appellant has not complied before the AO. The appellant has not even produced complete books of account before me and I find from the record that there has been repeated non-compliance by the appellant

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

194H have no applicability for such payments and consequently, the question of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise. I further find that the appellant has not complied before the AO. The appellant has not even produced complete books of account before me and I find from the record that there has been repeated non-compliance by the appellant

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

194H have no applicability for such payments and consequently, the question of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise. I further find that the appellant has not complied before the AO. The appellant has not even produced complete books of account before me and I find from the record that there has been repeated non-compliance by the appellant

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

194H have no applicability for such payments and consequently, the question of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise. I further find that the appellant has not complied before the AO. The appellant has not even produced complete books of account before me and I find from the record that there has been repeated non-compliance by the appellant

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

194H have no applicability for such payments and consequently, the question of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise. I further find that the appellant has not complied before the AO. The appellant has not even produced complete books of account before me and I find from the record that there has been repeated non-compliance by the appellant

SHRI HRIBU BOSE,ASANSOL vs. I.T.O, WARD-1(2), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

194H of the Act. The AO also added the sum of Rs.1,18,058, Rs.11,35,369/- and Rs.10,92,880/-towards repairs and maintenance, depreciation charges and cash credit u/s.68 of the Act respectively and finally he determined the total income at Rs.1,33,38,720/- by an order u/s. 143(3) dated 22-12-2011. 6. Aggrieved