M/S. EASTERN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

section 32 of the Act. 2.12. Now, applying the same analogy to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that the plant & machinery at Motihari of the assessee company were agreed to be used by M/s.Shree Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. for a mutually settled consideration. Further, as per the above agreement, M/s. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. fixed asset

M/S. EASTERN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

section 32 of the Act. 2.12. Now, applying the same analogy to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that the plant & machinery at Motihari of the assessee company were agreed to be used by M/s.Shree Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. for a mutually settled consideration. Further, as per the above agreement, M/s. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. fixed asset

METAL BOX INDIA LTD,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1673 & 1674/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98 Metal Box India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1916/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 1996-97 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- Metal Box India Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 32 of the Act, depreciation is allowable on fixed assets which were put to use during the relevant period. Since during the previous year, only three units of the assessee company were in operaetion, hence in absence of details, 50% of depreciation claimed was disallowed in the sum of Rs 11,25,198

METAL BOX INDIA LTD,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1673 & 1674/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98 Metal Box India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1916/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 1996-97 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- Metal Box India Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 32 of the Act, depreciation is allowable on fixed assets which were put to use during the relevant period. Since during the previous year, only three units of the assessee company were in operaetion, hence in absence of details, 50% of depreciation claimed was disallowed in the sum of Rs 11,25,198

A.C.I.T CIR - 11(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. METAL BOX INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1673 & 1674/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98 Metal Box India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1916/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 1996-97 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- Metal Box India Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 32 of the Act, depreciation is allowable on fixed assets which were put to use during the relevant period. Since during the previous year, only three units of the assessee company were in operaetion, hence in absence of details, 50% of depreciation claimed was disallowed in the sum of Rs 11,25,198

M/S INTEGRATED EDUCATION RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is allowed while the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M.Balaganesh

Section-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091 PAN AAATI3264L APPELLANT/APPLICANT RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Assessee by : Mr.S.M.Surana, Advocate Revenue by : Mr.Snehotpal Datta, JCIT Date of hearing : 20.5.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 01.06.2016. O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member The Assessee had filed the above stay application praying for an order of stay of recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.24

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

198 ITR 297 / 64 Taxman 442 and has then elucidated: "18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). We may also note that the heading of section 147 is "income escaping assessment" and that

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

depreciation claimed thereon, the assessing authority was bound to consider the Explanation. Simply because the facts have been disclosed by the assessee, it does not give immunity from revisional jurisdiction which the Commissioner can exercise under section 263 and as such even in a case where the facts have been disclosed by the assessee to the assessing authority

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 32(1) of the Act which makes it mandatory for the ld AO to grant depreciation. 8.2. The ld CITA partially accepted the contentions of the assessee and deleted the disallowance of Rs 15,99,45,025/- made u/s 35CCB of the Act. With regard to disallowance of depreciation, he allowed depreciation on tangible assets to the tune

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 32(1) of the Act which makes it mandatory for the ld AO to grant depreciation. 8.2. The ld CITA partially accepted the contentions of the assessee and deleted the disallowance of Rs 15,99,45,025/- made u/s 35CCB of the Act. With regard to disallowance of depreciation, he allowed depreciation on tangible assets to the tune

THE ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 32(1) of the Act which makes it mandatory for the ld AO to grant depreciation. 8.2. The ld CITA partially accepted the contentions of the assessee and deleted the disallowance of Rs 15,99,45,025/- made u/s 35CCB of the Act. With regard to disallowance of depreciation, he allowed depreciation on tangible assets to the tune

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 263:- “6. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee. These observations were raised in the show cause notice, which is discussed hereunder:- (i) Long term capital gain(without STT):- The assessee claimed long term capital loss (without STT) of Rs.109,80,30,873/-on account of loss suffered from government securities(Rs.111

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE & FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

198 fTR 582 (Cal.)] has enunciated that the expenses incurred by way of commission paid to sales agent do not attract disallowance under sub-sections (3A) & (3B) of sec. 37. The Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CfT Vs. Mohd. fshaque Gulam [(1998) 232 ITR 869 (MP)] has held that the dealer's commission and sales agent

NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

198 fTR 582 (Cal.)] has enunciated that the expenses incurred by way of commission paid to sales agent do not attract disallowance under sub-sections (3A) & (3B) of sec. 37. The Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CfT Vs. Mohd. fshaque Gulam [(1998) 232 ITR 869 (MP)] has held that the dealer's commission and sales agent

DR. UTTAM LODH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

section 2 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, detailed by the Assessee in the Statement of Facts as well as the Grounds of Appeal filed before him. 3.For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was wrong in not consider the fact that: (a) entry number III.(3)(via) in Depreciation Schedule covers the case of commercial vehicles acquired

DIPTI MEHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 802/Kol/2013 A.Y 2007-08 D.C.I.T, Circle-1, Kolkata Vs. M/S. The India Jute & Industries Ltd Pan: Aabct1896P (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation to 8 years and bringing it at par with set off of unabsorbed business losses. Again Section 32(2) of the Act was amended by Finance Act 2001 with effect from 1.4.2002 reintroducing the old version of section 32(2). He argued that the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Act 2001 clearly states that the amended section

DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S RAV DRAVYA PVT LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenues is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 103/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Rav Dravya Private Limited Tax, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Hastings Chambers, 2Nd Floor Vs 7/C, Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aabcr3154Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Md. Ghayasuddin, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/03/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. This Revenue’S Appeal Is Time Barred By 198 Days & The Petition Seeking Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Stating That The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal Was Attributable To The Restrictions Imposed Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That There Is Reasonable Cause For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal On Time. Hence We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

198 days and the petition seeking condonation of delay has been filed stating that the delay in filing of this appeal was attributable to the restrictions imposed due to Covid-19 pandemic. We have heard both the sides and find that there is reasonable cause for delay in filing of the appeal on time. Hence we condone the delay