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

depreciation allowance in respect of a block of asset which has not been given full effect to prior to the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2020, corresponding adjustment shall be made to the written down value of such block of assets as on the 1st day of April, 2019 in the prescribed manner, if the option

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

depreciation to the extent of Rs. 53,32,210/- being 10% of the total expenditure of Rs. 5,33,22,099/- ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in appellant's own case in DCIT -vs- EIH Limited (2015) I.T.A. No. 426/Ko1/2006 for AY 2002-03· ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

depreciation and other capital expenditure mentioned is varied when such liability crystalises in the year of payment. Hence, the mark-to-market loss being only a notional loss for the purpose of the books of account of the assessee and no crystallization of such loss having been occurred during the year, such loss has rightly been disallowed

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

depreciation and\nother capital expenditure mentioned is varied when such liability\ncrystalises in the year of payment. Hence, the mark-to-market loss\nbeing only a notional loss for the purpose of the books of account of the\nassessee and no crystallization of such loss having been occurred\nduring the year, such loss has rightly been disallowed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

depreciation and\nother capital expenditure mentioned is varied when such liability\ncrystalises in the year of payment. Hence, the mark-to-market loss\nbeing only a notional loss for the purpose of the books of account of the\nassessee and no crystallization of such loss having been occurred\nduring the year, such loss has rightly been disallowed

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

depreciation and\nother capital expenditure mentioned is varied when such liability\ncrystalises in the year of payment. Hence, the mark-to-market loss\nbeing only a notional loss for the purpose of the books of account of the\nassessee and no crystallization of such loss having been occurred\nduring the year, such loss has rightly been disallowed

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

depreciation and\nother capital expenditure mentioned is varied when such liability\ncrystalises in the year of payment. Hence, the mark-to-market loss\nbeing only a notional loss for the purpose of the books of account of the\nassessee and no crystallization of such loss having been occurred\nduring the year, such loss has rightly been disallowed

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

depreciation and\nother capital expenditure mentioned is varied when such liability\ncrystalises in the year of payment. Hence, the mark-to-market loss\nbeing only a notional loss for the purpose of the books of account of the\nassessee and no crystallization of such loss having been occurred\nduring the year, such loss has rightly been disallowed

HARIT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Section 2(1A)(c), Agriculture Income includes any income derived from the building owned & occupied by the receiver of the rent or revenue of any such land provided that the building is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land and is used as a dwelling house or as a store house of the agriculture produce. 4. That

DCIT(EXAMPTION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAA SARASWATI GYAN MANDIR EDUCATION SOCIETY , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2002/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit(Exemption), Circle- Vs. Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir 1(1), Kolkata

depreciation is to be allowed even if the cost of the asset is treated as application. We note that section 11 (1A

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

1A) and section 4 and also the intimation sent by the AO levying additional tax. High court speaking through one of us (Ruma Pal, J.) noticed that section 28 of the Act was amended with retrospective effect from 1st April 1967. It said: “An assessee cannot be imputed with clairvoyance. When the return was filed , the assessee could not possibly

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

1A) and section 4 and also the intimation sent by the AO levying additional tax. High court speaking through one of us (Ruma Pal, J.) noticed that section 28 of the Act was amended with retrospective effect from 1st April 1967. It said: “An assessee cannot be imputed with clairvoyance. When the return was filed , the assessee could not possibly

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

1A) and section 4 and also the intimation sent by the AO levying additional tax. High court speaking through one of us (Ruma Pal, J.) noticed that section 28 of the Act was amended with retrospective effect from 1st April 1967. It said: “An assessee cannot be imputed with clairvoyance. When the return was filed , the assessee could not possibly

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (SUCESSOR OF HINDUSTHAN HEAVY CHEMICALS LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 205(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. If it is so, then the assessee was not having any loss or unabsorbed depreciation for set off or deduction as per explanation (iv) to sec. 115J(1A

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTAN HEAVY CHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 205(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. If it is so, then the assessee was not having any loss or unabsorbed depreciation for set off or deduction as per explanation (iv) to sec. 115J(1A

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]

1A) or under Explanation 1 to Sec.32 w.e.f. 1.4.1971. We note that before 1.4.1971, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee had to be totally disallowed and such assessee was not eligible to claim even depreciation. The aforesaid view of ours has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens

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